KEVIN REAVES, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed a second-degree murder conviction, holding that the trial court properly denied the defendant's motion to suppress his oral statements to police because he did not equivocally invoke his right to remain silent.
A trial court's denial of a motion to suppress oral statements is affirmed when the defendant did not equivocally invoke the right to remain silent.
[1] A trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress is reviewed with a presumption of correctness, and the appellate court must interpret evidence and reasonable inferences in…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKevin Reaves was convicted of second-degree murder. He challenged his conviction by arguing the trial court should have suppressed his oral statements…
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 For Suppression Rulings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges his conviction for second degree murder contending that the trial court reversibly erred in failing to suppress the oral statements that he made to the police. We affirm.1
It is well settled that a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress arrives at the appellate court clothed in a presumption of correctness and absent clear error of law or fact, the appellate court must interpret the evidence and reasonable inferences derived therefrom in a manner most favorable to sustaining the trial court’s ruling. See, e.g., Medina v. State, 466 So. 2d 1046, 1049 (Fla.1985); In Interest of M.C., 641 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Finding no clear error of law or fact upon our review of the record, and determining that there was not even an equivocal invocation of the right to remain silent, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
GLICKSTEIN, WARNER and PARIENTE, JJ., concur. . We address the issue of whether (he trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress even though no objection was raised because the state concedes that in this instance, were the motion to suppress erroneously denied, a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel would be clear on the face of the record for failure to object when the statement was introduced at trial. See, e.g., Gordon v. State, 469 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 480 So. 2d 1296 (Fla.1985).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Henley v. State, 719 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…his preservation problem, appellant claims that this court can review the error absent an objection at trial because the failure to object constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel apparent on the face of the record. He cites to Reaves v. State, 669 So. 2d 352 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). However, in Reaves the state conceded that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim was cognizable on the face of the record; by contrast, in the present case, there is no such concession of error. Instances where the app…
-
Johnson v. State, 689 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…nd appellant, about a month later. In reviewing an order on a motion to suppress, this court must interpret the evidence and reasonable inferences derived therefrom in a manner most favorable to sustaining the trial court’s ruling. Reaves v. State, 669 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). While we are reluctant to follow the State’s urging and say that there was no seizure because appellant failed to fully comply with the officer’s order to raise both hands, the record supports the conclusion that even if there w…
Authorities Cited
- Medina v. State, 466 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 1985)
- Gordon v. State, 469 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- In re The Interest of M.C., 641 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)