PEDRO ANDRES BRAVO, 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.
Pedro Bravo appealed his conviction for first-degree murder and related offenses in the death of his friend. The appellate court rejected all three of Bravo's claims on appeal and affirmed his conviction.
The appellate court rejected all three claims. Bravo failed to meet his burden showing newly discovered evidence would probably produce an acquittal on retrial and did not establish a Brady violation. The trial court properly denied the suppression motion because Bravo was not subject to custodial interrogation when he voluntarily spoke with law enforcement. Cell phone location records are business records that are not testimonial by nature and do not implicate Confrontation Clause concerns.
[1] Newly discovered evidence warrants a new trial only if it is of such a nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial.
[2] A trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress is presumed correct and will be upheld if supported by competent, substantial evidence.
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“of such nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial”
The standard Bravo failed to meet in demonstrating newly discovered evidence warranted a new trial.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing a ten-day jury trial, Bravo was convicted of first-degree murder, false imprisonment, poisoning, tampering with physical evidence, giving fa…
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 Newly Discovered Evidence Standard For New Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
Following a ten-day jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first degree murder, false imprisonment, poisoning, tampering with physical evidence, giving false information to law enforcement concerning the commission of a capital felony, giving false information to law enforcement concerning a missing person investigation, and unlawful transportation of human remains, related to the death of his friend. Appellant raises three issues on appeal which we reject.
We reject the Appellant’s first claim that the trial court erred in denying a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. At the evidentiary hearing on the motion for new trial, Appellant did not meet his burden to show that the purported newly discovered evidence was “of such nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial.” Jones v. State, 591 So.2d 911, 915 (Fla.1991); see also Johnston v. State, 27 So.3d 11 (Fla.2010). Furthermore, to the extent that Appellant’s claim of a Brady1 violation *799was preserved, we do not find that any violation occurred.
We reject Appellant’s second claim that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his inculpatory statements made to law enforcement. The question of whether a suspect is in custody during interrogation is a mixed question of law and fact. Ramirez v. State, 739 So.2d 568 (Fla.1999). “A trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress is presumed correct.” Bonifay v. State, 626 So.2d 1310, 1312 (Fla.1993). The trial court made extensive factual findings on the suppression issue and these findings were supported by competent, substantial evidence. See Parker v. State, 873 So.2d 270 (Fla.2004); The trial court applied the correct law in determining whether Appellant was subject to custodial interrogation. Therefore, we find no error in the trial court’s finding that when Appellant voluntarily spoke with law enforcement as part of his scheme to mislead authorities as to the reason for Mr. Aguilar’s disappearance, Appellant was not being subjected to custodial interrogation.
Finally, we reject Appellant’s claim of a Confrontation Clause violation regarding testimony as to Appellant’s cell phone location. As we have previously stated, “business records ‘by their nature’ are not testimonial.” Martin v. State, 936 So.2d 1190 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (quoting Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 56, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004)).
AFFIRMED.
LEWIS, BILBREY, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004)
- Jones v. State, 591 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 1991)
- Ramirez v. State, 739 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 1999)
- J.B. Parker v. State, 873 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 2004)
- Johnston v. State, 27 So. 3d 11 (Fla. 2010)
- Bonifay v. State, 626 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 1993)
- Martin v. State, 936 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)