State v. Bravo

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Bravo

565 So. 2d 857, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 5954, 1990 WL 114683

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 10, 1990

DocketNo. 89-01747

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 565 So. 2d 857 (State v. Bravo) 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

State v. Bravo, 565 So. 2d 857, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 5954, 1990 WL 114683 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order suppressing cocaine found in the trunk of defendant’s car. The trial court did not commit reversible error in ruling that, notwithstanding the officers’ testimony that defendant voluntarily opened the trunk, defendant, as he testified, did not do so and did not consent to the search of the trunk. See Perez v. State, 536 So.2d 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (“The settled law governing review of a trial court’s decision on a motion to suppress is that the ruling comes to the appellate court with a presumption of correctness and a reviewing court should not substitute its judgment for that of a trial court, but, rather, should defer to the trial court’s authority as a factfinder. Review of the record shows that the case was based on sharply conflicting testimony on the consent question, which was solely for the trial judge ... — not this court — to resolve.”). (Citations and footnote omitted.)

Affirmed.

RYDER, A.C.J., LEHAN, J., and CLAIRE K. LUTEN, Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order suppressing cocaine found in the trunk of defendant’s car. The trial court did not commit reversible error in ruling that, notwithstanding the officers’ testimony that defendant voluntarily opened the trunk, defendant, as he testified, did not do so and did not consent to the search of the trunk. See Perez v. State, 536 So.2d 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (“The settled law governing review of a trial court’s decision on a motion to suppress is that the ruling comes to the appellate court with a presumption of correctness and a reviewing court should not substitute its judgment for that of a trial court, but, rather, should defer to the trial court’s authority as a factfinder. Review of the record shows that the case was based on sharply conflicting testimony on the consent question, which was solely for the trial judge ... — not this court — to resolve.”). (Citations and footnote omitted.)

Affirmed.

RYDER, A.C.J., LEHAN, J., and CLAIRE K. LUTEN, Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

565 So. 2d 857, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 5954, 1990 WL 114683, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bravo-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack