State v. Dickson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Dickson

35 So. 3d 1027, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 7613, 2010 WL 2178754

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 2, 2010

Docket3D09-3447

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 35 So. 3d 1027 (State v. Dickson) 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. Dickson, 35 So. 3d 1027, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 7613, 2010 WL 2178754 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a State appeal from an order granting the motion to suppress filed by defendant-appellee Phillip Dickson. The State argues that the trial court ruling is contrary to the proposition that “[a] court must accept evidence which ... is neither impeached, discredited, controverted, contradictory within itself, or physically impossible.” State v. Fernandez, 526 So.2d 192, 193 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).

At the hearing, the rule was invoked and the two police officers testified separately. The testimony of the two officers differed on whether the defendant was walking forward, or backward, when he allegedly shoved one of the officers. The officers disagreed over whether it was a light push or strong shove that almost knocked the officer down. The court was also skeptical of whether it was physically possible for the officers to have taken the defendant into custody in the way that they described. The court was free to make its own credibility determination, and this court is not free to reweigh the evidence. See State v. Glatzmayer, 789 So.2d 297, 301 (Fla.2001); Byrd v. State, 964 So.2d 806, 806-07 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is a State appeal from an order granting the motion to suppress filed by defendant-appellee Phillip Dickson. The State argues that the trial court ruling is contrary to the proposition that “[a] court must accept evidence which ... is neither impeached, discredited, controverted, contradictory within itself, or physically impossible.” State v. Fernandez, 526 So.2d 192, 193 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).

At the hearing, the rule was invoked and the two police officers testified separately. The testimony of the two officers differed on whether the defendant was walking forward, or backward, when he allegedly shoved one of the officers. The officers disagreed over whether it was a light push or strong shove that almost knocked the officer down. The court was also skeptical of whether it was physically possible for the officers to have taken the defendant into custody in the way that they described. The court was free to make its own credibility determination, and this court is not free to reweigh the evidence. See State v. Glatzmayer, 789 So.2d 297, 301 (Fla.2001); Byrd v. State, 964 So.2d 806, 806-07 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 So. 3d 1027, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 7613, 2010 WL 2178754, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dickson-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack