State v. Pinder

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Pinder

524 So. 2d 501, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1117, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1864, 1988 WL 44468

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 10, 1988

DocketNo. 87-1970

StatusPublished

This text of 524 So. 2d 501 (State v. Pinder) 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. Pinder, 524 So. 2d 501, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1117, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1864, 1988 WL 44468 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In response to the state’s appeal from the trial court’s ruling granting suppression of evidence and discharge, counsel for appellee filed a memorandum brief confessing error and a motion for leave to withdraw. Proceeding in the manner outlined in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 19 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), this court permitted appellee thirty days within which to file a statement of points. Appellee has not filed his brief or statement. Accordingly, we hold that the state’s appeal has merit. See United States v. Garcia, 741 F.2d 363 (11th Cir.1984); United States v. Torres, 741 F.2d 1323 (11th Cir.1984). Cf. State v. Suco, 521 So.2d 1100 (Fla.1988) (owner of premises, not casual visitor, has standing to challenge search as violative of fourth amendment rights).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

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

PER CURIAM.

In response to the state’s appeal from the trial court’s ruling granting suppression of evidence and discharge, counsel for appellee filed a memorandum brief confessing error and a motion for leave to withdraw. Proceeding in the manner outlined in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 19 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), this court permitted appellee thirty days within which to file a statement of points. Appellee has not filed his brief or statement. Accordingly, we hold that the state’s appeal has merit. See United States v. Garcia, 741 F.2d 363 (11th Cir.1984); United States v. Torres, 741 F.2d 1323 (11th Cir.1984). Cf. State v. Suco, 521 So.2d 1100 (Fla.1988) (owner of premises, not casual visitor, has standing to challenge search as violative of fourth amendment rights).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

524 So. 2d 501, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1117, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1864, 1988 WL 44468, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-pinder-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack