STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN DANIELS, APPELLEE
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
JOHN DANIELS, APPELLEE
891 So. 2d 1202
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2005)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
The state appeals an order suppressing statements made by appellee defendant to the police, both at his residence and later at the police station. The trial court granted the motion because the court found that the statements were made while defendant was being detained without probable cause. There is ample evidence in the record to support this finding, and we accordingly affirm. State v. C.F., 798 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
POLEN, KLEIN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lescher v. Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles, 946 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…DCA 2002), the statute in effect at the time of application for reinstatement of a driver’s license controls, not the statute in effect when the driver’s license was revoked. We agree with Cantrall. Hill v. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 891 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Petitioner argues that when the legislature reenacted the law effective July 1, 2003, the elimination of the hardship license violated the ex post facto prohibition in the Florida Constitution, Article I, section 10, as to him.…
-
Ott Cornelius, II v. State, 913 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…e’s amendment. Because the applicable law is the law in effect at the time the application for license reinstatement is made, Cornelius was precluded from reinstatement of his driving privileges. See Hill v. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 891 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). The trial court summarily denied Cornelius’s postconviction relief motion, which alleged his plea was involuntary based upon the change of the license reinstatement statute. The court found that there was a conflict within this…
-
Murray Leopold v. State, 960 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…. We deny the petition for writ of certio-rari on the merits. See Lescher v. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 946 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), review granted, 949 So. 2d 198 (Fla.2007); Hill v. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 891 So. 2d 1202, 1203 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (piting Cantrall v. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 828 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)). We certify the same question that this court-certified in Lescher: Does the amendment to section 322.271(4), Florida Statu…
Authorities Cited
- Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Soper, 798 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- State v. C.F., 798 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)