THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT AND DENISE STEPHENS, APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Factual Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The state appeals the trial court’s order suppressing physical evidence seized from the Stephens’ automobile without a warrant. Our review of the record reveals the existence of conflicts in testimony.
It is well-settled that on a motion to suppress, the trial court serves as trier of both fact and law. Cameron v. State, 112 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959). It is the province of the trial judge to make determinations concerning the credibility of the witnesses and weight of evidence. Ponder v. State, 323 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Because the appellate court must accept the trial court’s factual determinations when they are supported by the record, State v. Favaloro, 424 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); State v. Battleman, 374 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), the trial court’s resolution of conflicting evidence will not be disturbed on appeal. State v. Garcia, 431 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Thomas, 212 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968).
Because we find support in the record for the trial court’s order, we affirm.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gonzalez v. State, 578 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…uppress necessarily accepted the police testimony on this point, and we are bound by this implicit finding. See Harvey v. State, 502 So. 2d 1305, 1306 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Dooley v. State, 501 So. 2d 18, 18-19 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); State v. Stephens, 441 So. 2d 171, 171 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Garcia, 431 So. 2d 651, 651 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). . The above-stated officer so testified below (R.348). Mrs. Gonzalez, on the other hand, gave a different version of this encounter; she testified that this officer s…
-
COX v. State, 473 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…(1983); Jackson v. State, 456 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The trial judge resolved the conflicts against the appellant, and his determination is not reviewable here except in the absence of any substantial, competent evidence. State v. Stephens, 441 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Next, appellant urges the extraction was illegal, primarily on two grounds: use of unreasonable force (the statute authorizes use of reasonable force) and failure to accord appellant the right to have his attorney present. The…
-
Bjon LEE v. Condell, 208 So. 3d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…ncy, 802 So. 2d 1171, 1172 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). Because substantial, competent evidence exists to support the trial court’s ruling, this Court will not disturb on appeal the trial court’s resolution of the conflicting evidence. See State v. Stephens, 441 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). III. CONCLUSION Given these facts, we conclude that the trial court’s findings rejecting the credibility of Lee’s claim that the Notes were to be used for communication with counsel are supported by the record and will not be s…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cameron v. State, 112 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- State v. Battleman, 374 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Williams v. State, 374 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Lovon Ponder v. State, 323 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- State v. Garcia, 431 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- State v. Thomas, 212 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)
- State v. Favaloro, 424 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)