MATTHEW MILTON DUNK, 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.
Matthew Dunk appealed his conviction for possession of morphine pills and drug paraphernalia after pleading guilty, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's credibility determinations regarding the lawfulness of the search.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to suppress. The appellate court deferred to the trial court's credibility determinations that the officers' testimony regarding consent was more credible than Dunk's testimony that the search was non-consensual.
[1] A search of a person's belongings without consent or probable cause constitutes an unlawful seizure.
[2] A trial court's findings of fact and credibility determinations regarding witness testimony are entitled to deference on appeal.
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“He grabbed a bag Mr. Dunk was carrying, said, 'Let me see this,' and immediately started looking through it without Mr. Dunk's consent.”
Establishes the factual dispute regarding whether the search was consensual, forming the basis of the suppression motion
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDunk and a companion stopped at a gas station when his car overheated. While walking around the area, they were approached by Tampa Police Officers Va…
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 Possession Of A Controlled Substance cases and more on FLexlaw
Matthew Dunk, via Anders1 counsel, appeals his conviction and sentence of twen*167ty-four months’ probation after a negotiated plea to possession of ten morphine pills without a prescription and possession of drug paraphernalia. See §§ 893.13(6)(a), 893.147(1), Fla. Stat. (2014). He reserved for appeal the denial of his dispositive motion to suppress evidence. After examining the record before us, we find no issue upon which we can grant relief to Mr. Dunk. Therefore, we affirm.
At the hearing on the motion to suppress, Mr. Dunk testified that he and Susan Schulz were driving back from Wal-mart when his car started overheating. He stopped at a gas station at Bearss Avenue and 22nd Street in Tampa. While waiting for the engine to cool down, Mr. Dunk and Ms. Schulz went for a walk around the area. As they were walking back toward the car, they saw Tampa Police Officers Vasconi and Dennie exit their patrol car and walk toward them. Officer Dennie asked them to stop. He grabbed a bag Mr. Dunk was carrying, said, “Let me see this,” and immediately started looking through it without Mr. Dunk’s consent. Ms. Schulz testified, too, and corroborated Mr. Dunk’s testimony.
Officer Vasconi testified that she saw Mr. Dunk walking in an area of high drug activity. She exited the patrol ear and made consensual contact with Mr. Dunk. Officer Vasconi did not see Mr. Dunk committing any crime. She asked him if he had anything illegal on his person. When Mr. Dunk said no, she asked if she and Officer Dennie could search him. Officer Vasconi claimed that both Mr. Dunk and Ms. Schulz consented to be searched. When he testified at the hearing, Officer Dennie echoed Officer Vasconi’s testimony.
After hearing the testimony, the trial court denied the motion to suppress, finding the officers’ testimony more credible than that presented by Mr. Dunk and Ms. Schulz. “[T]his Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court on questions of fact, likewise of the credibility of the witnesses as well as the weight to be given to the evidence by the trial court.” Griffin v. State, 114 So.3d 890, 905 (Fla. 2013) (quoting Lowe v. State, 2 So.3d 21, 30 (Fla. 2008)). We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion. Therefore, we affirm.
Affirmed.
SILBERMAN and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Emmet Zachery, 255 So. 3d 957 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- In re App. Court Response to Anders Briefs, 581 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 1991)
- Lowe v. State, 2 So. 3d 21 (Fla. 2008)
- Griffin v. State, 114 So. 3d 890 (Fla. 2013)