GERMAN GOMEZ AND FLORENTINO MOLINA, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Probable Cause For Warrantless Search cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The judgments of conviction and sentences under review are affirmed upon a holding that: (a) the motion to suppress the evidence was properly denied by the trial court as the subject marijuana was observed by a state agent in “open view” prior to any official intrusion upon the defendant’s privacy, which “open view” gave the state agent probable cause to search the defendants’ boat without a search warrant and to seize the marijuana thereon, see e. g., Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925), adopted by § 933.19, Fla.Stat. (1979); Ensor v. State, 403 So. 2d 349 (Fla.1981); and (b) the motion to dismiss the information for lack of jurisdiction over the offense was properly denied by the trial court because the ground urged in support thereof could only be urged on a sworn motion to dismiss under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(c)(4) or on a motion for judgment of acquittal at trial.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vessel Described AS ONE 36 Foot Mirage v. State, 487 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…A 1983). However, evidence is admissible in light of the fact that the seizing officer saw and smelled marijuana residue without even boarding the boat. Thus, McGilvary had probable cause to search the boat without a search warrant. Gomez v. State, 402 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1981).” The appellant urges that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the forfeiture proceeding because the search and seizure of the boat was conducted without a warrant and no exception to the warrant requirement a…1 / 2
-
German A. Gomez and Florentino Molina v. State, 437 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…the offense was properly denied by the trial court because the ground urged in support thereof could only be urged on a sworn motion to dismiss under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(c)(4) or on a motion for judgment of acquittal at trial.”1 See Gomez v. State, 402 So. 2d 1239, 1240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Second, they alternatively alleged that their trial counsel, “by entering into a plea agreement calling for an appeal of an unappealable issue, rendered ineffective legal representation.” There is clearly no defect in the…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (U.S. 1925)
- Elton E. Ensor v. State, 403 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 1981)