GUY EMERY MOSIER, 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.
The court held that the trial court's finding of no state action was supported by uncontroverted evidence, affirming the denial of the motion to suppress.
Following a prior remand, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing to determine if a suitcase was detained due to state action. The trial court fou…
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 State Action cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal involves events subsequent to remand in State v. Mosier, 392 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). In that case, the court held:
We vacate the order appealed and remand for an evidentiary determination of whether or not the suitcase was effectively detained because of state action pertaining to the officer’s investigation. If so, then the motion to suppress should be granted; if the suitcase was not seized prior to Dewey’s sniff, then the motion should be denied.
State v. Mosier, supra.
Pursuant to our mandate, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing and found that the suitcase in question was not detained because of state action. Consistent with our mandate, the trial court then denied the motion to suppress. Thereafter, the defendant entered a plea of nolo con-tendere, reserving his right to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress.
We have examined the record in detail and conclude that the trial court’s finding of “no state action” is supported by uncon-troverted evidence. The judgment and sentence are, accordingly, affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Allie I. Roxy v. Roxy, 454 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…d that its rationale has been limited to its particular facts. Peckham v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 415 F. 2d 312 (10th Cir.1969); Yates v. Yates, 272 F. 2d 52 (5th Cir.1959); Vath v. Vath, 432 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Pensyl v. Moore, 415 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 3d DCA), petition for review denied, 424 So. 2d 762 (Fla.1982); Dixon v. Dixon, 184 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966), cert. denied, 194 So. 2d 897 (Fla.1967). In Dixon a final decree of divorce ordered the husband “to maintain and keep current w…
-
Vath v. Vath, 432 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…rtio-rari in Dixon, finding no conflict with cited decisions, which included the Supreme Court’s decision in Cadore, supra. In Dixon, as in the instant case, the trial court relied on Cadore. The Third District Court of Appeal in Pensyl v. Moore, 415 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), adopted the rationale of the Second District Court of Appeal in Dixon, set forth above, in a situation in which the final judgment of dissolution provided that “the husband shall maintain and remain the owner of all life insuranc…1 / 2
-
Cantrell v. Home Life Ins. Co., 524 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…insurance policies in question. In making the agreement, the father conveyed an unqualified interest in one-half of the proceeds thereof in the appellant and the father’s later attempt to change the beneficiary was ineffective. See Pensyl v. Moore, 415 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), rev. denied, 424 So. 2d 762 (Fla.1982); Dixon v. Dixon, 184 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966), cert. discharged, 194 So. 2d 897 (Fla.1967). Accordingly, the summary judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for the trial court to e…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Mosier, 392 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)