Santiago v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Santiago v. State

728 So. 2d 331, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 2565, 1999 WL 123763

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 10, 1999

DocketNos. 97-1688, 98-317

StatusPublished

This text of 728 So. 2d 331 (Santiago 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

Santiago v. State, 728 So. 2d 331, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 2565, 1999 WL 123763 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence where the defendant has failed to overcome the presumption of correctness that accompanies the trial court’s ruling. Smith v. State, 719 So.2d 1018, 1021 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (“[D]ecisions of a trial court in considering a motion to suppress come to an appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness, and a reviewing court will interpret the evidence and reasonable inferences derived therefrom in a manner most favorable to such a ruling.”) (citations omitted). In the instant case, after considering the evidence and reasonable inferences derived therefrom in a manner most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, we find that the defendant failed to show that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area of the car dealership where he worked.

Accordingly, we affirm the defendant’s conviction and revocation of probation, and his sentences.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence where the defendant has failed to overcome the presumption of correctness that accompanies the trial court’s ruling. Smith v. State, 719 So.2d 1018, 1021 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (“[D]ecisions of a trial court in considering a motion to suppress come to an appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness, and a reviewing court will interpret the evidence and reasonable inferences derived therefrom in a manner most favorable to such a ruling.”) (citations omitted). In the instant case, after considering the evidence and reasonable inferences derived therefrom in a manner most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, we find that the defendant failed to show that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area of the car dealership where he worked.

Accordingly, we affirm the defendant’s conviction and revocation of probation, and his sentences.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

728 So. 2d 331, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 2565, 1999 WL 123763, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/santiago-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack