DONNIE LEROY MARTIN, APPELLANT,
v.
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 trial court's denial of an evidentiary hearing on the motion to suppress was an abuse of discretion, requiring reversal.
Appellant was convicted of burglary of a dwelling. He filed a timely motion to suppress evidence.…
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 Burglary Of A Dwelling cases and more on FLexlaw
WOLF, Judge.
Appellant raises three issues in this appeal of his criminal conviction for burglary of a dwelling. Because we find the trial court’s denial of a hearing on appellant’s motion to suppress to be error, we reverse the conviction and do not reach appellant’s other points.
Appellant’s motion to suppress, filed five days prior to trial, was timely under rule 3.190(h)(4), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure; therefore, we find it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to refuse to grant appellant an evidentiary hearing on that motion. See Ferrazzoli v. State, 442 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); T.C. v. State, 336 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).1
We reverse and remand to the trial court with instructions for the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the motion to suppress prior to trial.
BOOTH and JOANOS, JJ., concur. . The denial of an evidentiary hearing in this case is especially crucial because the ultimate determination of whether to grant the motion appears to rest on factual determinations.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
First Fin. USA, Inc. v. Les Steinger, 760 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…orpo [*998] rate officers. Orlovsky v. Solid Surf, Inc., 405 So. 2d 1363 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). A corporate officer or representative of a defendant corporation is not shielded from individual liability for his own torts. Roth v. Nautical Eng’g Corp., 654 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Fraud in the inducement is a recognized intentional tort that can subject a corporate officer to individual liability. See La Pesca Grande Charters, Inc. v. Moran, 704 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). In Roth, the plaintiff alle…1 / 2
-
Rogers v. State, 844 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…. See Chapman v. State, 446 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Ferrazzoli v. State, 442 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Barker v. State, 438 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); see also Ross v. State, 779 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Martin v. State, 654 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Gadson v. State, 600 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Williams v. State, 548 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). In the instant case, based on the State's pretrial stipulation, the trial judge, without an evidentiary hearing, entere…
-
Brinker v. W.P. McDEVITT & Assocs., Inc., 693 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…mere promise not performed, fraud in the inducement may properly be founded on fact that promisor had specific intent when promise was made not to perform promise, and other elements of fraud are established); and Roth v. Nautical Engineering Corp., 654 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (corporate officer individually liable for fraud committed while acting as corporate representative.). STEVENSON, J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.…
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
- T. C. v. State, 336 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Yates v. Yates, 442 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)