JAMIE BUTLER, 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 court held that competent substantial evidence supported the trial judge's finding that the defendant consented to a search.
Police approached the defendant in an area known for drug sales and asked if he had narcotics. The defendant denied having any, and when asked if he m…
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 Factual Findings cases and more on FLexlaw
LAWRENCE, Judge.
Jamie M. Butler (Butler) appeals his conviction and sentence, imposed after a jury found him guilty of possession of cocaine and cannabis.1 Butler raises one issue, the denial of his motion to suppress. We affirm.
Review of a Florida motion to suppress is a mixed question of law and fact, yoked to federal law. Art. I, § 12, Fla. Const.; Perez v. State, 620 So. 2d 1256 (Fla.1993). The standard of review for the trial judge’s factual findings is whether competent substantial evidence supports the judge’s ruling. Caso v. State, 524 So. 2d 422 (Fla.1988). The standard of review for the trial judge’s application of the law to the factual findings is de novo. Ornelas v. U.S., 517 U.S. 690, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996).
The instant trial judge denied Butler’s motion to suppress, finding that Butler consented to be searched. The evidence is as follows. Officer Folsom testified at the suppression hearing:
We went to that area [of a complaint of drug sales], found four people. Like the judge mentioned there, two of them walked off, Mr. Butler and another one stayed.
Detective Goodman, who was working with me that day, walked to the other one. I walked up to Mr. Butler and made contact with him, made small talk about the guys that left must have been the drug dealers, and asked him if he had any narcotics on him. He said he did not. I said, do you mind if I take a look in your pockets? He said no, as in, no I don’t mind.
Competent substantial evidence supports the trial judge’s finding that Butler consented to be searched. We therefore affirm Butler’s judgment and sentence.
KAHN and MICKLE, JJ., concur. . Butler committed these crimes on February 12, 1996, in Leon County. The trial judge sentenced Butler on count one to forty months in prison followed by eighteen months of felony drug-offender probation, and to time served on count two.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (27 total)
-
Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 2002)…most favorable to sustaining the trial court’s ruling. See Murray v. State, 692 So. 2d 157 (Fla.1997). The reviewing court is bound by the trial court’s factual findings if they are supported by competent, substantial evidence. See Butler v. State, 706 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). The trial court’s determination of the legal issue of probable cause is, however, subject to the de novo standard of review. See Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996); Connor v. State, 80…
-
Smith v. State, 753 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…whether Smith voluntarily consented to the police officer’s search of his mouth. At the outset, I note that our review of a trial court’s order on a motion to suppress is a mixed question of fact and law, yoked to federal law. See Butler v. State, 706 So. 2d 100, 101 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (citing Art. I, § 12, Fla. Const.; Perez v. State, 620 So. 2d 1256 (Fla.1993)). An appellate court reviews the trial court’s factual findings to determine whether competent substantial evidence supports the judge’s ruling. S…
-
State v. Furr, 723 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…se of the accouterments of police office, including a patrol car and blue lights, bars a citizen’s arrest. This court conducts de novo review of a trial court’s application of the law to undisputed facts in a motion to suppress. See Butler v. State, 706 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); see also Vaughn v. State, 711 So. 2d 64, 66 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)(“Review of whether the trial court has applied the correct legal rule is de novo, because application of an incorrect rule is erroneous as a matter of law.”) Under…
Previewing 3 of 27 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (U.S. 1996)
- Rigoberto Caso v. State, 524 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1988)
- Dykstra-Gulick v. Gulick, 620 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 1993)