JULIO A. NUNEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Julio Nunez was convicted by jury of attempted delivery or possession with intent to deliver over 100 pounds of marijuana and sentenced to five years probation with adjudication withheld. On appeal, Nunez challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence and confession, witness testimony about organized crime involvement, and sufficiency of evidence regarding his control of the contraband. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding no reversible error on any of the four points raised.
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that: (1) the stop was legal based on well-founded suspicion and the arrest was supported by probable cause; (2) the trial court properly ruled on the voluntariness of the confession after proper warnings were given; (3) a witness's statement about working for the Organized Crime Bureau was not prejudicial; and (4) the evidence was sufficient to show Nunez's control over the contraband under applicable law.
[1] A traffic stop is legal if based upon a well-founded suspicion of illegal activity.
[2] Probable cause for an arrest exists if the facts establish that the defendant committed the crime for which they are later convicted.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A review of the evidence at the hearing upon the motion to suppress shows evidence which, if believed by the trial court, is sufficient to sustain the trial court's finding that the stop was legal as based upon a well-founded suspicion of defendant's illegal activity.”
Establishes that the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress was supported by sufficient evidence of lawful stop and seizure.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNunez was found driving a truck containing more than 100 pounds of marijuana. A trial court denied his motion to suppress the evidence, finding the st…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Prejudicial Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Julio A. Nunez, was found guilty by a jury of attempted delivery or possession with intent to deliver more than one hundred pounds of marijuana. Adjudication was withheld and Nunez was sentenced to five years probation. This appeal is from the judgment and sentence.
Four points are presented, none of which shows reversible error. The first two points urge error upon the court’s denial of defendant’s motion to suppress evidence concerning the marijuana found in the truck he was driving. A review of the evidence at the hearing upon the motion to suppress shows evidence which, if believed by the trial court, is sufficient to sustain the trial court’s finding that the stop was legal as based upon a well-founded suspicion of defendant’s illegal activity. See State v. Payton, 344 So. 2d 648 (Fla.2d DCA 1977); see also State v. Spanierman, 267 So. 2d 102 (Fla.2d DCA 1972). The arrest was legal because the facts established probable cause that the defendant had committed the crime for which he was later convicted. See Escobio v. State, 64 So. 2d 766 (Fla.1953); and State v. Padilla, 235 So. 2d 309 (Fla.3d DCA 1970).
The order denying the motion to suppress defendant’s confession is, likewise, supported by sufficient evidence that proper warnings were given and that the confession was freely and voluntarily given. There remains a question raised by defendant that the trial judge refused to rule upon the voluntariness of the confession and submitted the same to the jury without ruling. See McDole v. State, 283 So. 2d 553 (Fla.1973). We find that the last statements of the judge culminating in the comment that the matter should be presented to the jury was not a refusal to rule upon the voluntariness, and that he did so rule. Cf. Wilson v. State, 304 So. 2d 119, 120 (Fla.1974).
The third point on appeal urges error upon a response of a prosecution witness who indicated that he worked for the Organized Crime Bureau. This innocuous statement is not sufficient to support the defendant’s claim that he was prejudiced so that he could not receive a fair trial because of this knowledge on the part of the jury. Cf. Crews v. State, 353 So. 2d 210 (Fla.3d DCA 1977).
The fourth point on appeal urges that the evidence was insufficient to show defendant’s control over the contraband in the truck which he was driving. This argument is insufficient upon the facts of this case under the law set forth in Davis v. State, 350 So. 2d 834 (Fla.2d DCA 1977).1
Having considered each point presented and finding no reversible error, the judgment and sentence are affirmed.
Affirmed.
. Reversed on other grounds.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ramirez v. State, 411 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
-
Davis v. State, 397 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. North v. State, 65 So. 2d 77 (Fla.1952); Koran v. State, 213 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); Reis v. State, 248 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701 (Fla.1978); Nunez v. State, 367 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Black v. State, 367 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).…
-
Olimpio Zerquera v. State, 440 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Kindell v. State, 413 So. 2d 1283 (Fla.3d DCA 1982); Nunez v. State, 367 So. 2d 268 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); Mabery v. State, 303 So. 2d 369 (Fla.3d DCA 1974), cert. denied mem., 312 So. 2d 756 (Fla.1975).…
Authorities Cited
- McDOLE v. State, 283 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1973)
- Wilson v. State, 304 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 1974)
- State v. Padilla, 235 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- State v. Payton, 344 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- State v. Spanierman, 267 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)
- Peterson v. State, 350 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Davis v. State, 350 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Escobio v. State, 64 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 1953)
- Crews v. State, 353 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)