STATE OF FLORIDA
v.
ROBERT LEE DENNARD III
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 State appealed a trial court's suppression order that granted Dennard's motion to suppress all evidence from his DUI traffic stop. The appellate court reversed because the trial court failed to provide adequate factual findings to support its suppression ruling, preventing meaningful appellate review.
The trial court's order granting the suppression motion was reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to provide adequate factual findings—either orally or in writing—to support its legal conclusion. When a trial court fails to provide an adequate record for appellate review, reversal is required.
[1] A trial court's failure to provide adequate factual findings, either orally or in writing, to support its ruling on a dispositive motion to suppress requires reversal.
[2] Appellate review of a trial court's findings of fact is for competent, substantial evidence, while legal conclusions are reviewed de novo.
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“After hearing testimony of the witnesses, argument of the attorneys, this Court finds that the State has not met its burden by clear and convincing evidence. As a result, this Court grants the defense's motion to suppress.”
The trial court's oral ruling granting the suppression motion, which the appellate court found inadequate because it contained no factual findings supporting the legal conclusion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn December 14, 2019, a Quincy Police officer stopped Dennard after observing him failing to maintain his lane and going over the center lane and fog …
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 Burden Of Proof By Clear And Convincing Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________
No. 1D2023-0083 No. 1D2023-0085 _____________________________
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellant,
v. ROBERT LEE DENNARD III,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the County Court for Gadsden County. Kathy J. Garner, Judge.
May 22, 2024 WINOKUR, J.
Robert Lee Dennard III was arrested for driving under the influence (DUI) and cited with a traffic violation. After Dennard successfully moved to suppress dispositive evidence, the State filed this appeal. We reverse.
On December 14, 2019, Dennard was stopped by an officer of the Quincy Police Department. The officer observed Dennard failing to maintain his lane of traffic and going over the center lane and fog line on the road. After observing Dennard’s behavior, the officer conducted a traffic stop and immediately deduced that Dennard was driving while impaired.
Dennard was cited for failing to maintain his traffic lane, driving with a suspended license, and DUI. He was later charged with DUI and driving with a suspended license. However, Dennard never proceeded to trial because he moved to suppress all the evidence obtained from his traffic stop. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the motion, where it heard testimony from Dennard and the arresting officer. The court orally announced its ruling, stating that “[a]fter hearing testimony of the witnesses, argument of the attorneys, this Court finds that the State has not met its burden by clear and convincing evidence. As a result, this Court grants the defense’s motion to suppress.” A similarly inadequate written order was later entered. This appeal followed.
The State argues that the trial court’s failure to provide factual findings, either orally or in writing, to support its conclusion in granting a dispositive motion to suppress was erroneous. We agree.
We review a trial court’s findings of fact for competent, substantial evidence and the legal conclusions de novo. See Tyson v. State, 351 So. 3d 1184, 1186 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022). But when a trial court fails to provide an adequate record from which this Court can conduct its review, we must reverse. See State v. Moore, 791 So. 2d 1246, 1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (citing State v. Shaw, 784 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)).*
Accordingly, the trial court’s order granting Dennard’s motion to suppress is REVERSED and REMANDED for the trial court to explain on the record its factual findings.
* In making this decision, we note that “[a] seizure for a traffic violation justifies a police investigation of that violation.” Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 354 (2015).
LEWIS and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Robert “Charlie” Lee, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee; Jack Campbell, State Attorney, Tallahassee, and Caroline M. Nelson, Assistant State Attorney, Quincy, for Appellant. Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Justin F. Karpf, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Moore, 791 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- State v. Kip Allen Shaw, 784 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)