HECTOR VELA, A/K/A HECTOR VERA, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 affirmed the conviction, finding no error in the denial of the motion to suppress based on the trial court's credibility determination of consent.
Hector Vela was convicted of cocaine trafficking after evidence was admitted following a search. Vela argued the search was warrantless and without co…
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 Consent To Search cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Hector Vela, a/k/a Hector Vera, appeals from a judgment of conviction, following a bench trial, for trafficking in cocaine. The state cross-appeals from the trial court’s suppression of additional cocaine seized. We affirm the judgment of conviction and dismiss the state’s cross-appeal.1
On appeal, Vela contends that the cocaine admitted into evidence was the fruit of a warrantless search conducted without his consent and, therefore, should have been suppressed. However, after hearing testimony from the officers who conducted the search and contradictory testimony from the defendant, the court specifically found that Vela had given the officers general consent to search the premises. The parties stipulated that the court could con sider the evidence presented at the suppression hearing for purposes of a bench trial and rendition of a verdict. The trial court found Vela guilty.
We find no error in the denial of the motion to suppress. Where the issue on appeal turns on the credibility of the investigating officers and that of the defendant, credibility determinations made by a trial court will not be disturbed on appeal. Alzate v. State, 466 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).
We find no merit in Vela’s remaining points on appeal.
Affirmed; cross-appeal dismissed.
. At oral argument, the state announced that, if Vela’s conviction was affirmed, it would abandon its cross-appeal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Abelardo Arafet v. State, 595 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Davis v. State, 520 So. 2d 572 (Fla.1988); Vela v. State, 547 So. 2d 242, 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); State v. Smith, 529 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Alzate v. State, 466 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).…
-
Alvarez v. State, 581 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Vela v. State, 547 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), rev. denied, 557 So. 2d 35 (Fla.1990); Alzate v. State, 466 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).…
Authorities Cited
- Tulio Alzate v. State, 466 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)