Singleton v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Singleton v. State

578 So. 2d 896, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4379, 1991 WL 72038

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 7, 1991

DocketNos. 90-2184, 90-2177

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 578 So. 2d 896 (Singleton 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

Singleton v. State, 578 So. 2d 896, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4379, 1991 WL 72038 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a conviction for grand theft, entered after a nolo contendré plea, and convictions for burglary and grand theft, entered after a jury trial.

Prior to the Supreme Court’s opinion in Nelson v. State, 578 So.2d 694 (Fla.1991), the trial court denied a Motion to Suppress, finding no standing. The Order reads in part as follows:

“ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that said Motion be, and the same is hereby denied. Defendant did not have the permission or consent of the owner of the subject vehicle and was not driving said vehicle at the time of said search and therefore lacks the requisite legal standing to challenge the search thereof. U.S. v. Peters, 791 F.2d 1270.” [(7th Cir. 1986) ]

We reverse upon the holding in Nelson v. State, supra, and return the matter to the trial court for further proceedings, commencing with a hearing on the Motion to Suppress. We also reverse the Order denying the return of the appellant’s property, in light of our initial ruling, without prejudice.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

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