PAUL ALLEN WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Florida appellate court affirmed the trial court's order withholding adjudication and imposing probation for carrying a concealed weapon, finding no error in the suppression hearing despite the trial judge's erroneous statement that the state need not allow the defendant to present evidence.
Although the trial judge made an incorrect statement about the defendant's right to present evidence at a suppression hearing, the appellate court found no reversible error because the defendant's attorney failed to make an adequate proffer of testimony or clearly establish on the record that the defendant was prepared to present relevant evidence.
[1] A defendant has a right to present relevant evidence at a suppression hearing, but failure to make an adequate proffer of testimony or establish on the record that the de…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“An accused always has a right to present relevant evidence at a suppression hearing.”
The court corrected the trial judge's erroneous statement about the defendant's rights at suppression hearings.
Williams was charged with carrying a concealed weapon and the trial court withheld adjudication of guilt and placed him on three years probation. At t…
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 Concealed Weapon cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Williams appeals an order withholding adjudication of guilt and placing him on three years probation for carrying a concealed weapon. He contends that the trial court refused to accept a proffer of his testimony at the hearing on his motion to suppress. We have reviewed the statements at the suppression hearing and find no error. Had appellant’s trial attorney made a sufficient proffer of his client’s testimony or had it been made clear on the record that appellant was prepared to present evidence of even the slightest relevance, a different result may have been necessary.
While we find no error, we feel compelled to point out a misstatement. The judge at the hearing, who was not Judge Swigert, said: “All we [meaning the state] have to do is present enough evidence to show that the seizure of the evidence was sufficient, and we don’t have to have a full discovery or a full trial on this.” This statement is not correct. An accused always has a right to present relevant evidence at a suppression hearing. If he is denied that right and adequately protects the record either with a proffer of relevant evidence or a showing he was denied the proffer, then we can remedy the error. Neither showing is in this record.
DAUKSCH, C. J., ORFINGER, and UP-CHURCH, FRANK, D., Jr., JJ., concur.