Sanchez v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sanchez v. State

516 So. 2d 1062, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 384, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 449, 1988 WL 12043

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 9, 1988

DocketNo. 87-889

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 516 So. 2d 1062 (Sanchez 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

Sanchez v. State, 516 So. 2d 1062, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 384, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 449, 1988 WL 12043 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to our relinquishment of jurisdiction and directions, the trial court has entered written findings of fact and conclusions of law which have been filed in this court. Because the trial court has now found, inter alia, that Officer Dieppa (a) “saw no possibility of a handgun or any other weapons on the defendant but suspected he was going to find crack cocaine in the defendant’s tightly clenched fist,” and (b) “prior to conducting his pat down of the defendant, ... specifically instructed the defendant to turn around and open his closed hand at which time a small, clear plastic bag containing suspect cocaine fell to the ground,” suppression of the evidence was required, and the defendant’s conviction on his nolo contendere plea reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress must be reversed upon the authorities cited in our opinion issued December 15, 1987.

Reversed with directions to discharge the defendant.

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

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to our relinquishment of jurisdiction and directions, the trial court has entered written findings of fact and conclusions of law which have been filed in this court. Because the trial court has now found, inter alia, that Officer Dieppa (a) “saw no possibility of a handgun or any other weapons on the defendant but suspected he was going to find crack cocaine in the defendant’s tightly clenched fist,” and (b) “prior to conducting his pat down of the defendant, ... specifically instructed the defendant to turn around and open his closed hand at which time a small, clear plastic bag containing suspect cocaine fell to the ground,” suppression of the evidence was required, and the defendant’s conviction on his nolo contendere plea reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress must be reversed upon the authorities cited in our opinion issued December 15, 1987.

Reversed with directions to discharge the defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

516 So. 2d 1062, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 384, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 449, 1988 WL 12043, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanchez-v-state-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack