STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
BERTRAM JEROME JACKSON, APPELLEE
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
BERTRAM JEROME JACKSON, APPELLEE
513 So. 2d 797
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1987)
Negative Treatment
Cited by 5 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
The State of Florida appeals from an order granting appellee’s motion to suppress evidence. The state contends that appellee’s motion to suppress fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 3.190(h)(2). We agree and reverse.
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(h)(2) provides:
Every motion to suppress evidence shall clearly state the particular evidence sought to be suppressed, the reasons for suppression and a general statement of the facts on which the motion is based. Since neither appellee’s motion nor the court’s order granting the motion identifies the items to be suppressed with particularity, we reverse the order granting appel-lee’s motion to suppress on the authority of State v. Breland, 421 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Also see State v. Hinton, 305 So. 2d 804, 808 n. 2 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), and State v. Pezzella, 397 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
GLICKSTEIN, DELL and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Wilfredo Leyva, 599 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…ress is designed to exclude evidence obtained in an unlawful search, id. 3.190(h), or a confession or admission illegally obtained. Id. 3.190(i). A motion to suppress must specify the evidence sought to be suppressed, id. 3.190(h); State v. Jackson, 513 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); and a motion to suppress a confession or admission must likewise be made with particularity. Granting of the [*694] motion results in exclusion of specified evidence but does not result in dismissal of the case unless both parti…
-
State v. Carlton McCRAY, 626 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…ion or confession. Even though the burden is on the state to point out the legal insufficiency of the motion, I believe the ultimate burden still rests with the trial court to determine whether the motion is legally sufficient. See State v. Jackson, 513 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). I conclude that this record does not support that the trial court ever determined the legal sufficiency of the motion. I am aware that the Fourth District, in State v. Hinton, 305 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), which involved…
-
State v. Green (9th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2015)
Authorities Cited
- State v. Hinton, 305 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- State v. Pezzella, 397 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- State v. Prentiss Breland, 421 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)