T. C., A JUVENILE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
The court held that denying a motion to suppress evidence without a hearing, when the motion was legally sufficient and could have been heard without unreasonable delay, constitutes reversible error.
A juvenile was adjudicated delinquent for grand larceny. Immediately before trial, a motion to suppress evidence was filed and denied without a hearin…
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 Timeliness Of Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
PEARSON, Judge.
The appellant was adjudicated a delinquent upon a finding that he was guilty of grand larceny. Immediately prior to trial, the public defender, on behalf of the child, filed a motion to suppress certain evidence. The circuit judge denied the motion without a hearing thereon. The record of the subsequent hearing on the charge makes clear that there was a substantial question presented by the motion. We hold that the circuit judge committed reversible error in denying the motion without a hearing on the merits. See CrPR 3.190(h)(3).
The motion was legally sufficient and the circuit judge did not suggest by order or otherwise that it was not. The State suggests that the motion was denied because it was untimely. Although rule 3.190 permits the filing of a motion to suppress evidence at any time before trial, it is true that such a motion may not be used as a means of unreasonably delaying the trial. In such an instance, the trial judge could, in the exercise of his discretion and in order to provide a prompt and fair trial to both the defendant and the State, strike an untimely motion. Cf. Davis v. State, Fla.App.1969, 226 So. 2d 257.
The circumstances of the instant case show that the motion could have been heard without an unreasonable delay. The witnesses on the motion were before the court and the motion could have been heard before proceeding to the merits. The evidence seized was the only evidence which connected the child to the larceny. We conclude that the denial of the motion without hearing was reversible error in that it deprived the child of due process of the law. See Foster v. State, Fla.App.1971, 255 So. 2d 533.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Donnie Leroy Martin v. State, 654 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…lorida Rules of Criminal Procedure; therefore, we find it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to refuse to grant appellant an evidentiary hearing on that motion. See Ferrazzoli v. State, 442 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); T.C. v. State, 336 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).1 We reverse and remand to the trial court with instructions for the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the motion to suppress prior to trial. BOOTH and JOANOS, JJ., concur. . The denial of an evidentiary hea…
-
Armond P. Savoie v. State, 401 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…to preserve for appeal any error in the admission of the evidence. O’Berry v. Wainwright, 300 So. 2d 740 (Fla.4th DCA 1974); Bailey v. State, 295 So. 2d 133 (Fla.4th DCA 1974); Law v. State, 204 So. 2d 741 (Fla.2d DCA 1967). Contra, T. C. v. State, 336 So. 2d 17 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); Davis v. State, 226 So. 2d 257 (Fla.2d DCA 1969). We do not reach the merits of the motion to suppress because we affirm on the basis of waiver. See Firestone v. Firestone, 263 So. 2d 223 (Fla.1972). Accordingly, the judgment and…
-
Armond P. Savoie v. State, 422 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 1982)…, Justice. This is a petition to review the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal reported as Savoie v. State, 401 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). We find conflict, as acknowledged by the district court in its opinion, with T.C. v. State, 336 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 3d [*310] DCA 1976), and Davis v. State, 226 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. The issue before us arose from a denial of a motion to suppress made during trial. Although the trial judge heard…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Davis v. State, 226 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- Foster v. State, 255 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)