M.J., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Appellate Review Of Factual Findings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM
M.J. appeals an order denying his motion to suppress evidence seized and statements made following his arrest for trespass. On review, the trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress comes to us clothed with a presumption of correctness. See San Martin v. State, 717 So. 2d 462, 469 (Fla.1998). Although the evidence ad duced at the suppression hearing was certainly in conflict as to whether appellant had permission to be on the premises of the housing complex where he was arrested, the reviewing court is bound by the trial court’s findings of fact on this matter, made after the suppression hearing, unless the findings are clearly erroneous. See State v. Setzler, 667 So. 2d 343, 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Our review of the record establishes that competent and substantial evidence supports the trial court’s findings and that the trial court correctly applied the law to the facts. See Warren v. State, 701 So. 2d 404, 405 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
ERVIN, VAN NORTWICK and BROWNING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Parker, 144 So. 3d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…ourt’s findings of historical fact if those findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence.’ ” Peraza v. State, 69 So. 3d 338, 340 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (quoting Ferguson v. State, 58 So. 3d 360, 363 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)). See M.J. v. State, 776 So. 2d 341, 342 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (“[T]he reviewing court is bound by the trial court’s findings of fact on this matter, made after the suppression hearing, unless the findings are clearly erroneous.”); Warren v. State, 701 So. 2d 404, 405 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997…
Authorities Cited
- Martin v. State, 717 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 1998)
- State v. Setzler, 667 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Warren v. State, 701 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)