STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
DONALD HOUSTON, 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 appellate court denied the state's petition for certiorari, finding the trial court's suppression of identification testimony was a factual finding presumed correct.
The trial court suppressed identification testimony after finding the police procedures were impermissibly suggestive and created a substantial probab…
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 Presumption Of Correctness On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We withdraw our previous opinion and substitute the following. In light of this opinion, we deny the motion for rehearing.
The State has filed a notice of appeal from a decision to suppress identification testimony. We treat the notice as a petition for certiorari. See State v. Keel, 557 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 1st DCA1990); State v. Mendez, 423 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 4th DCA1982).
After hearing testimony from the victim of a robbery and officers who investigated the incident, the trial court granted a defense motion to suppress the victim’s testimony that defendant was the person who robbed him. The court found that the procedures used by the officers were imper-missibly suggestive and that there was a substantial probability of misidentification. The state argues that the trial court erred.
A decision on a motion to suppress comes to us with a presumption of correctness, and we interpret the evidence and reasonable inferences in favor of the trial court’s findings. McNamara v. State, 357 So. 2d 410 (Fla.1978). The trial judge’s finding that the show-up in this case was unreasonably suggestive is a factual resolution within the presumption. The state’s attack on it here is little more than a quarrel with his view of the evidence. Hence the state has failed to demonstrate error, let alone the kind of departure from the essential requirements of law necessary to certiorari review.
CERTIORARI DENIED.
STONE and FARMER, JJ„ and WALDEN, JAMES H., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Porter v. State, 765 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…sonable inferences and deductions derived therefrom in a manner most favorable to sustaining the trial court’s ruling. See McNamara v. State, 357 So. 2d 410, 412 (Fla.1978); Glover v. State, 677 So. 2d 374, 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); State v. Houston, 616 So. 2d 595, 596 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). While we are required to accept the trial court’s determination of the historical facts leading to the search, a defendant is entitled to a de novo review of whether the application of the law to the historical facts establ…
-
State v. J.D., 796 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…d, 465 U.S. 1051, 104 S.Ct. 1329, 79 L.Ed.2d 724 (1984); Porter v. State, 765 So. 2d 76, 77 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)(citing McNamara v. State, 357 So. 2d 410, 412 (Fla.1978), Glover v. State, 677 So. 2d 374, 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), and State v. Houston, 616 So. 2d 595, 596 (Fla. [*1219] 4th DCA 1993)). While an appellate court is required to accept the trial court’s determination of the historical facts leading to the search, review of the application of the law to those facts requires a de novo standard of revie…
-
Williams v. State, 903 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…search. The court denied both motions. The defendant pled nolo contendere to the charges, reserving his right to appeal. A trial court’s decision on a motion to suppress arrives at this court with a presumption of correctness. See State v. Houston, 616 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). We review such orders de novo. See Harris v. State, 761 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). The first motion to suppress addressed whether law enforcement had probable cause to arrest the defendant. The defendant argues the inform…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McNAMARA v. State, 357 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 1978)
- State v. Renwick Keel, 557 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- State v. Mendez, 423 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)