Radeka v. State

Florida Circuit Courts

Radeka v. State

34 Fla. Supp. 2d 59

CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida

DecidedApril 21, 1989

DocketCase No. CJAP 88-15

StatusPublished

This text of 34 Fla. Supp. 2d 59 (Radeka v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Radeka v. State, 34 Fla. Supp. 2d 59 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

TED P. COLEMAN, Circuit Judge.

The Court dispenses with oral argument herein pursuant to Fla.R.App.P. 9.320.

The appellant maintains that the trial court had no authority to grant a rehearing and reverse its ruling granting a motion to suppress. The appellee argues that a court may change a ruling which is the product of fraud, collusion, deceit or mistake, citing State v Burton, 314 So.2d 136 (Fla. 1975).

The facts involved in this appeal are not complicated. The appellant filed a motion to suppress and scheduled it for a hearing. At the conclusion of that hearing the trial court determined that the appellee had not met its burden of showing that the stop and subsequent arrest of the appellant was legal. He granted the motion to suppress. His [60]*60order granting the motion was not entered by mistake. It was not the result of fraud, collusion or deceit. Nor was the order entered accidentally or because of oversight or neglect.

There is no basis under Florida rules to grant a rehearing after an order has been entered ruling on a motion to suppress. State v Alvarez, 492 So.2d 710, (Fla. 4DCA 1986).

The order of the trial court reversing itself and denying the motion to suppress is hereby reversed. The judgment and sentence are also reversed and this cause is remanded to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this order.

Motions for rehearing will not be entertained. The Clerk is directed to issue its Mandate forthwith.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Orlando, Orange County, Florida, this 21st day of April, 1989.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

TED P. COLEMAN, Circuit Judge.

The Court dispenses with oral argument herein pursuant to Fla.R.App.P. 9.320.

The appellant maintains that the trial court had no authority to grant a rehearing and reverse its ruling granting a motion to suppress. The appellee argues that a court may change a ruling which is the product of fraud, collusion, deceit or mistake, citing State v Burton, 314 So.2d 136 (Fla. 1975).

The facts involved in this appeal are not complicated. The appellant filed a motion to suppress and scheduled it for a hearing. At the conclusion of that hearing the trial court determined that the appellee had not met its burden of showing that the stop and subsequent arrest of the appellant was legal. He granted the motion to suppress. His [60]*60order granting the motion was not entered by mistake. It was not the result of fraud, collusion or deceit. Nor was the order entered accidentally or because of oversight or neglect.

There is no basis under Florida rules to grant a rehearing after an order has been entered ruling on a motion to suppress. State v Alvarez, 492 So.2d 710, (Fla. 4DCA 1986).

The order of the trial court reversing itself and denying the motion to suppress is hereby reversed. The judgment and sentence are also reversed and this cause is remanded to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this order.

Motions for rehearing will not be entertained. The Clerk is directed to issue its Mandate forthwith.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Orlando, Orange County, Florida, this 21st day of April, 1989.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 Fla. Supp. 2d 59, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/radeka-v-state-flacirct-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack