DENNIS TYRON TORRENCE
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
The trial court's ruling on the motion to suppress is affirmed.
[1] A trial court's findings of fact on a motion to suppress are presumed correct if supported by competent, substantial evidence, while the trial court's application of law…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“This Court's review of the trial court's ruling on the motion to suppress involves a mixed question of law and fact. The trial court's findings of fact are presumed correct if competent, substantial evidence supports those findings. The trial court's application of law to those facts is reviewed de novo.”
Standard of review for motion to suppress rulings, citing State v. Milewski, 194 So. 3d 376, 378 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)
Dennis Tyron Torrence appealed from a circuit court decision in Miami-Dade County involving multiple case numbers spanning from 1996 to 2008.…
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 Motion To Suppress cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed May 21, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-0446 Lower Tribunal Nos. F96-007158A, F98-026832B, F99-027576,
F08-002841
________________
Dennis Tyron Torrence, Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Andrea R. Wolfson, Judge.
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender and Manuel Alvarez, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Linda Katz, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, GORDO and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2 Affirmed. See State v. Milewski, 194 So. 3d 376, 378 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (“This Court’s review of the trial court’s ruling on the motion to suppress involves a mixed question of law and fact. The trial court’s findings of fact are presumed correct if competent, substantial evidence supports those findings. The trial court’s application of law to those facts is reviewed de novo.”); San Martin v. State, 717 So. 2d 462, 469 (Fla. 1998) (“A trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress comes to this Court clothed with a presumption of correctness and, as the reviewing court, we must interpret the evidence and reasonable inferences and deductions derived therefrom in a manner most favorable to sustaining the trial court’s ruling.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Martin v. State, 717 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 1998)
- State v. Milewski, 194 So. 3d 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)