DANIEL A. SUNBY, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Sunby petitioned for certiorari to review a circuit court's decision that overturned a county court's order granting his motion to suppress evidence in a DUI case. The Fifth District Court of Appeal granted the petition, holding that the circuit court improperly reweighed evidence and credibility determinations made by the county court, thereby violating the standard of appellate review.
The circuit court improperly reweighed the evidence and credibility determinations made by the county court. When reviewing a suppression order on appeal, the appellate court must presume the order correct and sustain it if there is competent substantial evidence supporting it, and cannot reweigh evidence or choose to believe witnesses that the trial court rejected based on credibility.
[1] An appellate court, reviewing a suppression order, must presume the order correct and sustain it if competent substantial evidence supports the lower court's ruling.
[2] An appellate court cannot reweigh evidence or choose to believe a witness whom the lower court chose not to believe.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Like the District Court of Appeal, the circuit court sitting in its appellate capacity cannot reweigh the evidence and choose to believe a state witness which the county court chose not to believe.”
Establishes the core legal principle that appellate courts reviewing suppression orders cannot substitute their judgment for the trial court's credibility determinations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOfficer Murphy stopped Sunby's vehicle, citing weaving within its lane and arrested him for DUI. A videotape made by the officer during the stop showe…
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 Suppression Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
Sunby seeks a writ of certiorari to review the circuit court’s decision, sitting in its appellate capacity. It overturned the county court’s order which granted Sun-by’s motion to suppress in Sunb/s DUI case. Because we conclude the circuit court improperly re-weighed and re-evaluated testimony and evidence presented at the suppression hearing, we grant the petition.
At the suppression hearing below, Officer Murphy testified he stopped Sunby’s car because it was weaving within its lane on the road. He cited Sunby for failure to maintain a single lane, and arrested him and charged him with DUI. The citation for failing to maintain a single lane was later dismissed because there was no evidence Sunby’s driving endangered the officer or anyone else. See § 316.089(1), Fla. Stat. (2002); Jordan v. State, 831 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
At the suppression hearing, the state presented a videotape of Sunby’s driving which had been made by Officer Murphy. The court found that there had been no infraction committed in Officer Murphy’s presence, based on the tape. However, the officer testified that before he began taping Sunby, he saw Sunby “striking the center line,” and driving more erratically than the tape indicated, thus justifying a reasonable suspicion on his part that Sun-by was impaired prior to stopping him. See generally State v. Carrillo, 506 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). The county court chose to disregard the officer’s testimony in ruling that Sunby’s driving, while not perfect, was not sufficiently erratic to give rise to a reasonable suspicion of impairment, under an objective standard.
This suppression order, when appealed to the circuit court, should have been presumed correct. See Maurer v. State, 668 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). If there was competent substantial evidence to support the county court’s ruling, it should have been sustained. See Smiddy v. State, 627 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Like the District Court of Appeal, the circuit court sitting in its appellate capacity cannot reweigh the evidence and choose to believe a state witness which the county court chose not to believe. Hart v. State, 661 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Maurer. Here the circuit court did just that. In seeking to sustain the circuit court decision, the state claims the county court “ignored relevant facts” and thus misapplied the appropriate rule of law. But the county court as the “fact-finder” in this proceeding is free to ignore or place less emphasis on certain testimony, based on credibility determinations. It need not give equal weight to all the evidence presented at the suppression hearing. As the circuit court misapplied the law in reweighing the evidence, we vacate the circuit court’s opinion overturning the county court’s order granting suppression.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari GRANTED; Opinion VACATED; REMANDED with directions to reinstate the County Court’s Order. THOMPSON, C.J., and PETERSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Weiss v. State, 965 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…y substantial competent evidence. The standard of review which should have been applied by the circuit court sitting in its appellate capacity was whether there was competent substantial evidence to support the county court’s ruling, Sunby v. State, 845 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). In Sunby, just as in the present case, the officer stopped the defendant for weaving or failure to maintain a single lane. The county court granted the defendant’s motion to suppress on the ground that the weaving was not suffi…
-
Laurence Alvin Duke v. State, 82 So. 3d 1155 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…vidence.’ ” Bautista v. State, 902 So. 2d 312, 313-14 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (quoting Cillo v. State, 849 So. 2d 353, 354 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)). Thus, a “suppression order, when appealed to the circuit court, should [be] presumed correct.” Sunby v. State, 845 So. 2d 1006, 1007 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); see also Bautista, 902 So. 2d at 314 (noting that reviewing court “ ‘must interpret the evidence and reasonable inferences and deductions derived therefrom in a manner most favorable to sustaining the trial court’s ruling’…
-
Skinner v. State, 31 So. 3d 940 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…tioner. See Weiss v. State, 965 So. 2d 842, 843 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (stating the standard of review of the circuit court sitting in its appellate capacity is whether competent substantial evidence supports the county court’s ruling); Sunby v. State, 845 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). We GRANT the petition, QUASH the decision of the circuit court, and direct that petitioner be discharged. BENTON and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Carrillo, 506 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Maurer v. State, 668 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- Brockington v. State, 506 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Shamous Jordan v. State, 831 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Smiddy v. State, 627 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Hart v. State, 661 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)