JUAN ALDAMA, GEORGE CASANOVA, AND BERNARDO SOTO, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the judgments of conviction upon a holding that (1) notwithstanding the defendants’ claim that the witnesses called by the State at the suppression hearing were in hopeless conflict and were inherently incredible, no error is shown where the trial court’s findings of fact, from which flowed the unassailed and unassailable conclusion of law that the search was valid, were supported by substantial competent evidence, Boykin v. State, 309 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); and (2) the defendants’ motion to dismiss the information because signed by an Assistant State Attorney was properly denied, see State v. Rivero, 400 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cabe v. State, 408 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…gn a felony information. Appellant’s position that the subject matter of the rule is a matter of substance rather than of procedure, and it is therefore ineffective, has been rejected by the court of appeal for the Third District in State v. Rivero, 400 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). We fully concur in the decision and the reasoning of the court in Rivero, and therefore conclude that no error has been shown. See also State v. Miller, 313 So. 2d 656 (Fla.1975). Next, appellant argues that because he was charg…
-
Mickey Dean Brown v. State, 493 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…hat an objection of this nature is waived once the defendant pleads to the merits of the case without properly raising it, we hold that Brown waived his right to object to this technical defect when he pled not guilty to the charge. State v. Rivero, 400 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).1 Secondly, Brown claims that the trial court erred in denying his discovery request for access to the inmate jackets of state witnesses confined within the Department of Corrections. In his motion, defendant alleged that the jac…
-
Aldama v. State, 400 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…were supported by substantial competent evidence, Boykin v. State, 309 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); and (2) the defendants’ motion to dismiss the information because signed by an Assistant State Attorney was properly denied, see State v. Rivero, 400 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Aldama v. State, 400 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Boykin v. State, 309 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Hodes Dev. Co., Inc. v. Cent. Fla. Fence Co., Inc., 309 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)