Pittman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pittman v. State

522 So. 2d 86, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 702, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1004, 1988 WL 21665

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 17, 1988

DocketNo. 87-569

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 522 So. 2d 86 (Pittman v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pittman v. State, 522 So. 2d 86, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 702, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1004, 1988 WL 21665 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction of possession of cocaine.

Although appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence, he neither alleged in his motion nor established in evidence at a hearing that anything was seized from him.

Even assuming appellant alleged and established that something was seized from him, he neither alleged nor established in evidence that it was done in contravention of any constitutional rights. From a reading of the police report found in the record on appeal, but not in evidence for consideration by the trial court or this court, it is possible that the search and seizure was not constitutionally proper. But, just as the trial court was bound to deny the motion based upon the allegations and the evidence at the hearing, we are also bound to affirm.

AFFIRMED.

SHARP, C.J., and COWART, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction of possession of cocaine.

Although appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence, he neither alleged in his motion nor established in evidence at a hearing that anything was seized from him.

Even assuming appellant alleged and established that something was seized from him, he neither alleged nor established in evidence that it was done in contravention of any constitutional rights. From a reading of the police report found in the record on appeal, but not in evidence for consideration by the trial court or this court, it is possible that the search and seizure was not constitutionally proper. But, just as the trial court was bound to deny the motion based upon the allegations and the evidence at the hearing, we are also bound to affirm.

AFFIRMED.

SHARP, C.J., and COWART, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

522 So. 2d 86, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 702, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1004, 1988 WL 21665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pittman-v-state-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack