ROBERT GILBERT AND PAUL COLEMAN, APPELLANTS,
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.
Robert Gilbert and Paul Coleman appeal their cocaine trafficking and conspiracy convictions, arguing that police unlawfully seized thirty kilograms of cocaine from their rental car without a warrant or probable cause. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirms, finding the trial court properly determined that police officers were credible in testifying the trunk was already partially open and the drugs were observed in plain view.
The court affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress, holding that the trial court's credibility determination—finding the officers more credible than the appellants—supports the conclusion that the trunk was already open and the cocaine was observed in plain view, constituting a lawful seizure.
[1] A trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress is presumed correct on appeal and must be interpreted in a manner most favorable to sustaining the ruling.
[2] An appellate court should defer to a trial court's authority as a fact finder and should not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.
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 ruling of a trial court on a motion to suppress, comes to the reviewing court clothed with a presumption of correctness, and the reviewing court must interpret the evidence and reasonable inferences and deductions derived therefrom in a manner most favorable to sustain the trial court's ruling”
Establishes the standard of review for suppression motions, requiring deference to the trial court's ruling.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice officers conducted a foot chase after a suspect fled on foot. During this pursuit, officers encountered Gilbert and Coleman in a rental car. Th…
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 Deference To Trial Court Findings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants, Robert Gilbert and Paul Coleman, appeal their convictions and sentences for trafficking in cocaine and conspiracy. We affirm.
Appellants contend that the trial court committed reversible error in denying their motions to suppress thirty kilograms of cocaine seized from the rental car they were driving on the date of their arrest. We disagree.
The appellants argued that the police unlawfully seized contraband from their vehicle without probable cause or a search warrant. Both Gilbert and Coleman claimed that an officer opened the trunk of their vehicle. The State asserted that the officers lawfully seized the drugs after observing them in plain view.
During the hearing on the motion to suppress, each of the police officers testified that they did not open the trunk of the vehicle. Furthermore, they did not observe the appellants open the trunk. Two of the officers were involved in a foot chase pursuing another suspect who had fled on foot. The third officer detained Gilbert and Coleman. Each officer testified that the trunk of the vehicle was opened twelve to eighteen inches, which was enough for them to view the contraband in plain view.
In contrast, appellants both testified that one of the police officers opened the trunk either with the key, or by using the trunk release. After both the assistant state attorney and defense counsel argued that the issue was one of credibility, the trial court denied the motion.
The law is well settled that the ruling of a trial court on a motion to suppress, comes to the reviewing court clothed with a presumption of correctness, and the reviewing court must interpret the evidence and reasonable inferences and deductions derived therefrom in a manner most favorable to sustain the trial court’s ruling. Owen v. State, 560 So. 2d 207, 211 (Fla.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 855, 111 S.Ct. 152, 112 L.Ed.2d 118 (1990); McNamara v. State, 357 So. 2d 410, 412 (Fla.1978); Rodriguez v. State, 189 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 848, 88 S.Ct. 66, 19 L.Ed.2d 116 (1967).
It is equally well settled that an appellate court should not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court, but rather, should defer to the trial court’s authority as a fact finder. Wasko v. State, 505 So. 2d 1314, 1316 (Fla.1987); DeConingh v. State, 433 So. 2d 501 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1005, 104 S.Ct. 995, 79 L.Ed.2d 228 (1984).
In this ease, the trial court was required to consider all the facts and circumstances and evaluate the credibility of the witnesses. Implicitly the trial court determined that the police officers were more credible than the appellants. This determination was solely for the trial judge and then the jury, not this court, to resolve. Tibbs v. State, 397 So. 2d 1120 (Fla.1981), aff’d, 457 U.S. 31, 102 S.Ct. 2211, 72 L.Ed.2d 652 (1982).
We have carefully considered appellants remaining issues and conclude that they are without merit. Accordingly, the convictions and sentences are affirmed in all respects.
Affirmed.
BAREDULL and GERSTEN, JJ., concur.
COPE, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The police videotape showed the State’s “plain view” theory to be physically impossible; so did the defendants’ proffered videotape. The motion to suppress should have been granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Scott, 641 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…ess, and the reviewing court will interpret the evidence and reasonable inferences and deductions derived therefrom in a manner most favorable to sustain the trial court’s ruling.” McNamara v. State, 357 So. 2d 410, 412 (Fla.1978); Gilbert v. State, 629 So. 2d 957, 958 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Perez v. State, 536 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Applying that principle, I would affirm the trial court’s order.1 . The lack of reasonable suspicion to justify the stop necessarily demonstrates a lack of probable cause t…
-
Hart v. State, 661 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…made a determination of admissibility, based on the prevailing standard as enunciated in Magaw. Such a factual issue was proper for the county court, and not the circuit court acting in its appellate capacity, to resolve. See, e.g. Gilbert v. State, 629 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). The circuit court reached a different conclusion because it attributed more significance to certain facts or testimony than did the county court. [*56] The appellate review afforded by the circuit court in this instance was tanta…
-
Castro v. State, 755 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…le and that the consent was voluntary, based upon the officer’s testimony. It was well within the court’s discretion to evaluate all of the facts and to determine that the officer’s testimony was more credible than appellant’s. Cf. Gilbert v. State, 629 So. 2d 957, 959 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); State v. Cardosa, 609 So. 2d 152, 153 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). Alternatively, the appellant argues that the use of a dog (referred to by the police as a K-9 unit) was beyond the scope of any consent given to the officers, relyi…
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 (13 total)
- Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (U.S. 1982)
- Delbert Lee Tibbs v. State, 397 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 1981)
- McNAMARA v. State, 357 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 1978)
- Owen v. State, 560 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 1990)
- Florida v. Deconingh, 465 U.S. 1005 (U.S. 1984)
- DeCONINGH v. State, 433 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1983)
- Wasko v. State, 505 So. 2d 1314 (Fla. 1987)
- Bristol Corp. v. United States, 465 U.S. 1005 (U.S. 1984)
- Onelio Garcia Rodriquez v. State, 189 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Moeller v. United States, 498 U.S. 855 (U.S. 1990)