STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
HARRELL ELMORE FRANKO, JR., 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's appeal of a suppression order is affirmed because the trial court properly found the defendant's confession was not freely and voluntarily given, and appellate review cannot reweigh the trial court's credibility determinations.
A trial court's finding that a confession was not freely and voluntarily given is affirmed when supported by competent substantial evidence and correct application of law, and appellate courts cannot reweigh the trial court's credibility determinations.
[1] A ruling on a motion to suppress a confession is presumed correct on appeal, and the appellate court must interpret evidence and reasonable inferences in a manner most fa…
[2] The State bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant's confession was freely, voluntarily, and intelligently given, and any waiver of…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe State appealed a trial court order suppressing evidence based on a finding that the appellee's confession was not freely and voluntarily given.…
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 Standard Of Review For Suppression Rulings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The State of Florida appeals an order suppressing evidence where the trial court found that the appellee’s confession was not freely and voluntarily given. We affirm.
A motion to suppress involves mixed questions of fact and law. United States v. Harris, 928 F. 2d 1113, 1115-16 (11th Cir.1991).
A ruling on such a motion is presumed to be correct, and our duty as an appellate panel is to interpret the evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom in a manner most favorable to sustaining that determination. Medina v. State, 466 So. 2d 1046 (Fla.1985).
The appellant had the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the appellee’s confession was freely, voluntarily, and intelligently given. Any waiver of a suspect’s constitutional rights must be “voluntary, knowing, and intelligent, ...” Traylor v. State, 596 So. 2d 957, 966 (Fla.1992); Fields v. State, 402 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
The totality of the circumstances considered by the lower tribunal in making its evidentiary ruling cannot be reweighed on appeal. Although we might have ruled differently had we been sitting as the trier of fact, we cannot substitute our judgment for that of the able trial court on the question of witness credibility. Tibbs v. State, 397 So. 2d 1120, 1123 (Fla.1981), affirmed, 457 U.S. 31, 102 S.Ct. 2211, 72 L.Ed.2d 652 (1982).
The trial court determined that the appellant failed to meet its burden of proof. Concluding that competent substantial evidence supports the challenged ruling, and that the trial court correctly applied the law, we AFFIRM the order. MINER, ALLEN and MICKLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Waller v. State, 911 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…The trial court imposed an $800 public defender lien without giving Mr. Waller notice of the lien and the opportunity to be heard. See § 938.29(6), Fla. Stat. (2002);4 see also Wilkerson v. State, 654 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Brown v. State, 681 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). This issue was also preserved by Mr. Waller by virtue of his motion to correct sentencing error. On remand, this lien may again be imposed, provided that Mr. Waller is afforded notice and an opportunity to contest its amount. A…
-
Duffey v. State, 741 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…902, 904 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). This court must interpret the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence in a manner most favorable to sustaining the trial court’s decision to deny the motion to suppress. See State v. Franko, 681 So. 2d 834, 835 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). The state carried its burden of showing that the defendant’s statement was freely and voluntarily given. See Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 111 S.Ct. 1246, 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991); Voorhees v. State, 699 So. 2d 602 (Fl…
-
Bright v. State, 689 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…and hearing, provided that the written order recites citation to statutory authority for any costs imposed. Snyder v. State, 662 So. 2d 1033, 1033 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (holding that a fee for First Step is not statutorily authorized); Brown v. State, 681 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (holding that it is error to impose a fee without providing notice to the defendant of his right to contest the amount, and error to fail to include in the written order a citation of statutory authority for the fee). MINER, WE…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (U.S. 1982)
- Delbert Lee Tibbs v. State, 397 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 1981)
- Traylor v. State, 596 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 1992)
- Medina v. State, 466 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 1985)
- United States v. Harris, 928 F.2d 1113 (11th Cir. 1991)
- Fields v. State, 402 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)