ARMOND P. SAVOIE, 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.
Armond Savoie appealed his conviction for bribery of a police officer, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress evidence (a briefcase seized at arrest). The Florida appellate court affirmed, holding that Savoie waived his right to suppress by failing to file the motion before trial despite having notice and opportunity to do so.
Savoie waived his right to suppress the evidence by failing to file the motion before trial when he was aware of the grounds and had ample opportunity. The court affirmed the judgment without reaching the merits of the suppression motion.
[1] A defendant waives the right to file a motion to suppress evidence prior to trial if the defendant is aware of the grounds for the motion and has had ample opportunity to…
[2] A trial court may entertain a motion to suppress or an appropriate objection at trial, even if not filed before trial, if the defendant lacked the opportunity to file it…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Because Savoie failed to move to suppress prior to the trial as required by the Rule when he was aware of the grounds for the motion and had ample opportunity to make the motion, we hold that he failed to preserve for appeal any error in the admission of the evidence.”
This establishes the core holding regarding waiver and preservation of error for appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSavoie was charged with bribery of a police officer. A briefcase was seized from him at the time of arrest. The briefcase and its contents were listed…
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 Preservation Of Error For Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, Judge.
Savoie was adjudicated guilty of the offense of bribery of a police officer in violation of section 838.015, Florida Statutes (1979). In this appeal Savoie argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the contents of a briefcase taken from his grasp at the time of his arrest. We disagree and affirm the judgment.
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(h)(4), provides:
The motion to suppress shall be made before trial unless opportunity therefore did not exist or the defendant was not aware of the grounds for the motion, but the court may entertain the motion or an appropriate objection at the trial.
Despite four continuances of the trial, Sa-voie’s motion to suppress the evidence was not filed until the second day of trial. The trial judge held a hearing and denied the motion to suppress because of Savoie’s waiver of his right to make the motion at that time and on the merits. He could have concluded that Savoie was aware of the grounds for the motion and had sufficient opportunity to make the motion prior to the trial. The briefcase was listed on discovery documents provided by the State. In a pre-trial deposition the principal police officer who arrested Savoie referred to the contents of the briefcase and responded that the warrantless arrest was based on probable cause.
Because Savoie failed to move to suppress prior to the trial as required by the Rule when he was aware of the grounds for the motion and had ample opportunity to make the motion, we hold that he failed to preserve for appeal any error in the admission of the evidence. O’Berry v. Wainwright, 300 So. 2d 740 (Fla.4th DCA 1974); Bailey v. State, 295 So. 2d 133 (Fla.4th DCA 1974); Law v. State, 204 So. 2d 741 (Fla.2d DCA 1967). Contra, T. C. v. State, 336 So. 2d 17 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); Davis v. State, 226 So. 2d 257 (Fla.2d DCA 1969). We do not reach the merits of the motion to suppress because we affirm on the basis of waiver. See Firestone v. Firestone, 263 So. 2d 223 (Fla.1972).
Accordingly, the judgment and sentence in this case are
AFFIRMED.
ORFINGER, J., concurs.
DAUKSCH, C. J., concurs specially.
DAUKSCH, Chief Judge,
concurring specially:
I concur with the majority and have considered the order on the merits, too. The trial court did not err.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Armond P. Savoie v. State, 422 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 1982)…OVERTON, Justice. This is a petition to review the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal reported as Savoie v. State, 401 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). We find conflict, as acknowledged by the district court in its opinion, with T.C. v. State, 336 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 3d [*310] DCA 1976), and Davis v. State, 226 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3),…
-
E.A. v. State, 570 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…[*1151] PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Muwwakil v. State, 435 So. 2d 304, 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Savoie v. State, 401 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), affirmed, 422 So. 2d 308 (Fla.1982); Dur-can v. State, 350 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Mills v. State, 280 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973).…
Authorities Cited
- Firestone v. Firestone, 263 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 1972)
- Davis v. State, 226 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- Bailey v. State, 295 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- O'Berry v. Louie L. Wainwright, 300 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Carey LAW v. State, 204 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- T. C. v. State, 336 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)