DENNIS A. BARNES, 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.
Dennis Barnes appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search of his marital home. The court affirmed, holding that Barnes's estranged wife, who had fled the home due to abuse, retained sufficient common authority over the marital residence to consent to the police search.
The wife retained sufficient common authority over and relationship to the marital home to consent to the search, despite having left the premises a few days earlier. The fact that she fled due to abuse, rather than voluntarily abandoning her residence, distinguished her situation from one where she had relinquished all connection to the property.
[1] A trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress is presumed to be correct on appeal.
[2] Appellate courts are bound by a trial court's factual findings if supported by competent, substantial evidence.
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“Authority to consent to a search arises from the mutual use of the property by persons generally having joint access, common authority over, or other sufficient relationship to the premises or effects to be inspected.”
Establishes the legal standard for third-party consent to search
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBarnes's estranged wife left the marital home due to his abuse. A few days later, she called police to report the abuse and informed them that weapons…
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 De Novo Review Of Legal Determinations cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Dennis A. Barnes, appeals his conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He raises three issues on appeal, only one of which merits discussion. He contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because his estranged wife, who *1288was not staying in the marital home, had no authority to consent to a search of the home. We reject this argument and affirm Appellant’s conviction and sentence.
Based upon the wife’s testimony below, she left the marital home due to Appellant’s abuse. A few days later, she called the police to report the abuse. She told the authorities that there were weapons inside the couple’s home, and she consented to a search of the premises. Appellant, who was home alone when the officers arrived, did not object to the search. A rifle was retrieved from the couple’s bedroom. After being charged with the offense at issue and felony battery, Appellant filed a motion to suppress, which the trial court denied. This appeal followed.
A trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress comes to the appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness. Pagan v. State, 830 So.2d 792, 806 (Fla.2002). An appellate court is bound by the trial court’s factual findings if they are supported by competent, substantial evidence. Id. A trial court’s legal determinations are reviewable de novo. Id.
Authority to consent to a search arises from the mutual use of the property by persons generally having joint access, common authority over, or other sufficient relationship to the premises or effects to be inspected. State v. Purifoy, 740 So.2d 29, 30 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (citing U.S. v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164,170, 94 S.Ct. 988, 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974)). Although Appellant argues that his wife had no authority to consent to the search because she had voluntarily left the home a few days before, there was no evidence that she had restricted access to the home when she gave consent or that she had formally changed her residence. Moreover, as the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reasoned when faced with a similar situation, “There is a difference between voluntarily giving up your home and being forced to flee from it in fear for your life.... ” U.S. v. Backus, 349 F.3d 1298, 1304 (11th Cir.2003) (affirming the lower court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress because the defendant’s wife, who fled as a result of the defendant’s abuse, still had enough common authority over, or a sufficient relationship to, the marital home to consent to a search of it). In this case, the evidence supports the trial court’s determination that Appellant’s wife had the authority to consent to a search of the couple’s home.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM Appellant’s conviction and sentence.
BENTON, C.J., DAVIS and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Williams, 184 So. 3d 1205 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…to the officer at the moment ... “warrant a man of' reasonable caution in the belief’ ’ that the' consenting party had authority over the premises?” (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21-22, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968))); Barnes v. State, 75 So. 3d 1287, 1288 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (“[T]he evidence supports the trial court’s determination that Appellant’s wife had the authority to consent to a search of the couple’s home.”); Marganet v. State, 927 So. 2d 52, 61 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (“[T]he evidence is…
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (U.S. 1974)
- Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 2002)
- State v. Purifoy, 740 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- United States v. Backus, 349 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2003)