CARLOS R. RAMOS, 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.
Ramos appealed the denial of his motion to suppress cocaine found during a vehicle search, claiming his consent to the search was not voluntary. The trial court found the consent voluntary based on the officer's testimony, and the appellate court affirmed because competent, substantial evidence supported the trial court's factual findings.
The trial court's finding that Ramos's consent was voluntary is supported by competent, substantial evidence, and the appellate court discerns no misapplication of law to the facts. Therefore, the denial of the motion to suppress and the conviction for possession of cocaine are affirmed.
[1] A trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress is presumed to be correct on appellate review.
[2] An appellate court must interpret the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the manner most favorable to sustaining the trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“A trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress comes to an appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness.”
Establishes the highly deferential standard of review applied to suppression rulings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice conducted a lawful traffic stop of Ramos's vehicle. The arresting officer requested consent to search the vehicle, and Ramos consented. The sea…
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 Trial Court Rulings cases and more on FLexlaw
MONACO, J.
Carlos R. Ramos seeks review of the order of the trial court denying his motion to suppress evidence; more particularly, a quantity of cocaine that was found in the vehicle he was driving. Because there was competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress, we affirm the judgment and sentence for possession of cocaine.
While Mr. Ramos agrees that the traffic stop that resulted in the search of the vehicle was lawful, and that he did, in fact, consent to the search, he asserts that his consent was not freely and voluntarily given. After hearing the testimony of the arresting officer and of Mr. Ramos, however, the trial court found that the consent at issue was voluntary. Mr. Ramos then pled nolo contendere to possession of cocaine, while properly preserving his right to appeal this issue.
A trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress comes to an appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness. A reviewing court must, therefore, interpret the evidence and all reasonable inferences derived from it in the manner most favorable to sustaining the trial court’s ruling. See Doorbal v. State, 837 So. 2d 940, 952 (Fla.), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 962, 123 S.Ct. 2647, 156 L.Ed.2d 663 (2003); Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792 (Fla.2002), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 919, 123 S.Ct. 2278, 156 L.Ed.2d 137 (2003); San Martin v. State, 717 So. 2d 462, 468 (Fla.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1071, 119 S.Ct. 1468, 143 L.Ed.2d 553 (1999). The standard of review to be applied to factual findings of the trial court is whether competent, substantial evidence supports the findings; however, the trial court’s application of the law to the facts is reviewed de novo. See Utu v. State, 929 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Houston v. State, 925 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006), review denied, 935 So. 2d 1220 (Fla.2006); Dewberry v. State, 905 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Lecorn v. State, 832 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Young v. State, 803 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); State v. Kindle, 782 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Hines v. State, 737 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); see also McMaster v. State, 780 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).
Here, the trial court believed the arresting officer’s version of the facts. As there was competent, substantial evidence supporting the court’s findings, and as we find no misapplication of the law to the facts, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
PLEUS, C.J. and ORFINGER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited (18 total)
- Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 2002)
- Doorbal v. State, 837 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 2003)
- Martin v. State, 717 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 1998)
- Hines v. State, 737 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- State v. Kindle, 782 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- McMASTER v. State, 780 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Donnie Young v. State, 803 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- S. C. et vir v. W. F. S., 539 U.S. 962 (U.S. 2003)
- Jones v. Mendez, 539 U.S. 962 (U.S. 2003)
- Dewberry v. State, 905 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)