C.E., A JUVENILE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a juvenile's delinquency adjudication for unlawful cocaine possession, holding that the respondent failed to preserve the search-and-seizure issue for appeal by making his motion to suppress untimely at trial rather than pretrial or at the outset of trial.
The trial court properly denied the untimely motion to suppress because the respondent failed to preserve the search-and-seizure issue for appellate review by not filing a pretrial motion or raising the issue at the outset of trial, thereby preventing the state from knowing it had to establish the lawfulness of the seizure and precluding any evidentiary hearing on the suppression motion.
[1] A motion to suppress evidence is untimely when made only after the state has presented virtually all testimony concerning the search and is offering the evidence.
[2] A trial court is not obligated to elicit testimony regarding the lawful seizure of evidence if the defense has not provided prior notice of a challenge to the legality of…
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“the respondent's motion to suppress was untimely made in the trial court”
Establishes the core holding that the suppression motion was procedurally defective due to untimely filing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceC.E., a juvenile, was charged with unlawful possession of cocaine. At trial, the state presented testimony concerning a search and offered the cocaine…
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 Unlawful Search And Seizure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the final adjudication of delinquency for unlawful possession of cocaine based on a holding that the respondent did not preserve for appellate review the sole point which he urges for reversal of his conviction, namely, that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the subject cocaine based on unlawful search grounds. We reach this result because, simply stated, the respondent’s motion to suppress was untimely made in the trial court.
The respondent made his objection and motion to suppress at trial only after virtually all the testimony concerning the search had been received and the cocaine was being offered in evidence by the state. Prior thereto, the state had no notice that the respondent was challenging the legality of the seizure of cocaine from the respondent, and, consequently, was under no obligation to elicit testimony as part of its case-in-chief that the subject cocaine was lawfully seized by the police. The respondent filed no pretrial motion to suppress this cocaine and made no oral motion to suppress such cocaine at the outset of the trial; consequently, no evidentiary hearing on the motion to suppress was ever held below, the “search” evidence having been received solely on the merits as part of the state’s case-in-ehief. This being so, the trial court properly denied the respondent’s untimely motion to suppress. See State v. Breland, 421 So. 2d 761, 766 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Wingert v. State, 353 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); State v. Hinton, 305 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Fla.R.Juv.P. 8.130(b)(5); see also United States v. Taylor, 792 F. 2d 1019, 1024-25 (11th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1030, 107 S.Ct. 1957, 95 L.Ed.2d 530 (1987); cf. Savoie v. State, 422 So. 2d 308 (Fla.1982) (trial court excused jury and conducted evidentiary hearing on defendant’s motion to suppress during trial and thereafter expressly ruled that search conducted therein was reasonable).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- THE Florida BAR v. Schell, 422 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 1982)
- State v. Hinton, 305 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Pointon v. Oklahoma, 481 U.S. 1030 (U.S. 1987)
- Gonzalez-Calles v. United States, 481 U.S. 1030 (U.S. 1987)
- United States v. Taylor, 792 F.2d 1019 (11th Cir. 1986)
- Wingert v. State, 353 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- State v. Prentiss Breland, 421 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)