WARD WILLIAM CHAPMAN, 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.
A motion to suppress physical evidence cannot be summarily denied without a hearing if it is legally sufficient.
The defendant was charged with possession of cocaine and driving under the influence. Defense counsel filed a motion to suppress physical evidence, wh…
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 Physical Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1187] LETTS, Judge.
The defendant was charged with possession of cocaine and driving under the influence. A motion to suppress physical evidence was filed and the trial court denied it without granting a hearing on the motion, over objection by defense counsel. We agree with the defendant and reverse.
Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.190(h) and (i) govern motions to suppress. Under these two sections, a motion can be summarily denied if it is legally insufficient. Although the defendant asserts that there is no case law defining the term ‘.‘legally sufficient,” several cases indicate that a motion must clearly state the reasons for suppression and also give a general statement of facts in support thereof as required by Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(h)(2). Herring v. State, 394 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) and Dean v. State, 430 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
The motion here clearly does state the reasons for suppression and a general statement of facts in support thereof, Barker v. State, 438 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). We, therefore, remand the matter to the trial court for a hearing in accordance herewith.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
BERANEK and HERSEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Hernandez, 841 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…vidence sought to be suppressed, the reasons for suppression, and a general statement of the facts on which the motion is based.” Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.190(h)(2); see also State v. Gibson, 670 So. 2d 1006, 1008 n. 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Chapman v. State, 446 So. 2d 1186, 1187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Herring v. State, 394 So. 2d 433, 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Furthermore, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(h)(3) requires the trial court, before hearing evidence, to determine if the motion to suppress is legally suf…
-
Gadson v. State, 600 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…be made before trial unless opportunity therefor did not exist or the defendant was not aware of the grounds for the motion, but the court may entertain the motion or an appropriate objection at the trial. (Emphasis supplied.) In Chapman v. State, 446 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), this court noted that [*1289] in order to be “legally sufficient” a motion to suppress “must clearly state the reasons for suppression and also give a general statement of facts in support thereof as required by Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.…
-
Rogers v. State, 844 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…592 So. 2d 682 (Fla.1991). . Wilson v. State, 746 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Bowe v. State, 600 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). . Pease v. State, 712 So. 2d 374 (Fla.1997); State v. Colbert, 660 So. 2d 701 (Fla.1995). . See Chapman v. State, 446 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Ferrazzoli v. State, 442 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Barker v. State, 438 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); see also Ross v. State, 779 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Martin v. State, 654 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Gads…
Authorities Cited
- Dean v. State, 430 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Herring v. State, 394 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- State v. Moyer, 394 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Harper v. Fordham, 438 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Barker v. State, 438 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)