STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
TIMOTHY J. HUNTON, 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 State appealed a trial court's order granting a motion to suppress evidence seized from Hunton's house. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's oral suppression ruling but remanded for entry of a corrected written order that conforms to the trial judge's oral pronouncement that evidence from the initial search should not be suppressed, but evidence from the bedroom search after Hunton said "get a warrant" should be suppressed.
The trial court's oral rulings on the motion to suppress were affirmed. The initial contraband found in the main portion of the house was not suppressible under the trial court's oral ruling, but evidence seized from the bedroom after Hunton demanded a warrant should be suppressed because officers failed to obtain the warrant Hunton explicitly requested.
[1] An appellate court will affirm a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress when the record contains evidence to support the trial court's findings.
[2] Appellate courts generally will not consider issues not presented to the lower court, absent fundamental error.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“when the defendant said get a warrant, and I heard Mm clearly on the tape say that, and a warrant was not obtained and they seized the stuff, they should have gotten one; in other words, I'm suppressing that”
Trial judge's oral ruling explaining that evidence from the bedroom search should be suppressed because officers failed to obtain a warrant after Hunton explicitly demanded one.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLaw enforcement officers searched Hunton's house with his initial consent, excluding the bedroom. During the search, Hunton stated "get a warrant" on …
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 Motion To Suppress Physical Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
FULMER, Judge.
The State has appealed the trial court’s order granting Timothy J. Hunton’s motion to suppress physical evidence seized from his house. We affirm the trial court’s oral rulings and remand for entry of a corrected order which conforms to those rulings.
A detailed recitation of the facts is unnecessary. The issues about which the parties disagreed and upon which the trial court ruled were: (1) whether Hunton initially consented to the law enforcement officers’ search of his house excluding the bedroom, and (2) whether, after that search, Hunton voluntarily consented to a search of the bedroom.
After hearing testimony at the suppression hearing, including an audio tape of the conversations between Hunton and the officers during the search process, the trial judge stated that he would not suppress the initial contraband which the officers found in the main portion of the house, “but when the defendant said get a warrant, and I heard Mm clearly on the tape say that, and a warrant was not obtained and they seized the stuff, they should have gotten one; in other words, I’m suppressing that.” The written order, however, grants Hunton’s motion to suppress without making any exception for the evidence discovered in the initial search.
A trial court’s ruling 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, 210 (Fla.1990); Hart v. State, 661 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). In this case, the record contains evidence to support the trial court’s rulings on both issues involved in the motion to suppress.
On appeal, the State not only argues the issue of consent but also argues that the doctrine of inevitable discovery should be applied to reverse the trial court’s ruling. “Except in cases of fundamental error, appellate courts will not consider an issue that has not been presented to the lower court in a manner that specifically addresses the contentions asserted.” Nevels v. State, 685 So. 2d 856, 857 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (citations omitted).
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s conclusions announced at the suppression hearing, but remand for entry of a corrected written order to conform to the court’s oral rulings.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In the Interest of D.G. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 970 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…rt the issues she advances here. “ ‘Except in cases of fundamental error, appellate courts will not consider an issue that has not been presented to the lower court in a manner that specifically addresses the contentions asserted.’” State v. Hunton, 699 So. 2d 320, 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (quoting Novels v. State, 685 So. 2d 856, 857 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)). We will not speculate as to whether appointed counsel could have preserved N.L.E.’s arguments for our review. N.L.E. had the opportunity but declined to have…
-
Bamberg v. State, 953 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…654] the reasonable suspicion required by Knights to search his residence, he did not make this argument in the trial court. Therefore, this issue was not preserved for our review. See Tillman v. State, 471 So. 2d 32, 35 (Fla.1985); State v. Hunton, 699 So. 2d 320, 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Accordingly, we consider only Mr. Bam-berg’s first argument: that the search of his residence was unreasonable because it was made for an investigatory purpose. However, the holding in Knights is fatal to Mr. Bamberg’s posi…
-
Lowery v. State, 894 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…an appellate court must interpret the evidence and the reasonable inferences and deductions derived from the evidence in a manner most favorable to sustain the trial court’s decision. Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792, 806 (Fla.2002); State v. Hunton, 699 So. 2d 320, 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Regarding the withdrawal of consent to a search, this court has stated that “[i]t is well settled that in the context of a consensual encounter, a voluntary consent to search can be withdrawn.” Phillips v. State, 707 So. 2d…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Owen v. State, 560 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 1990)
- Hart v. State, 661 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Nevels v. State, 685 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)