State v. Castellanos

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Castellanos

135 So. 3d 448, 2014 WL 1051966, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 3966

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 19, 2014

DocketNo. 2D12-2008

StatusPublished

This text of 135 So. 3d 448 (State v. Castellanos) 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. Castellanos, 135 So. 3d 448, 2014 WL 1051966, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 3966 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The State appeals the trial court’s order granting a motion to suppress evidence and statements in the cases of Jason Cas-tellanos, Ashley Machín, Richard Fink, Anthony Sierra, Joy Ford, Yoedel Hernandez, and Rick Menendez. We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(c)(1)(B). We reverse the trial court’s order pursuant to our decision in State v. Mitchell, 124 So.3d 1046 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (holding that defendants lack standing to seek suppression relating to jurisdictional defects of coconspirator’s arrest where they had no legally cognizable privacy interest in fraudulent prescriptions and evidence developed therefrom), and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

ALTENBERND, NORTHCUTT, and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The State appeals the trial court’s order granting a motion to suppress evidence and statements in the cases of Jason Cas-tellanos, Ashley Machín, Richard Fink, Anthony Sierra, Joy Ford, Yoedel Hernandez, and Rick Menendez. We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(c)(1)(B). We reverse the trial court’s order pursuant to our decision in State v. Mitchell, 124 So.3d 1046 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (holding that defendants lack standing to seek suppression relating to jurisdictional defects of coconspirator’s arrest where they had no legally cognizable privacy interest in fraudulent prescriptions and evidence developed therefrom), and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

ALTENBERND, NORTHCUTT, and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 So. 3d 448, 2014 WL 1051966, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 3966, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-castellanos-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack