STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
RENWICK KEEL, 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.
Florida's appeal of a suppression order was treated as a certiorari petition and denied because the trial court's failure to include detailed findings of fact in its suppression order did not constitute a departure from essential requirements of law.
A trial court is not required by rule or statute to set forth detailed findings of fact in a written order granting a motion to suppress, and the absence of such findings does not warrant certiorari relief absent a violation of clearly established law resulting in miscarriage of justice.
[1] A trial court need not include detailed findings of fact in a written order granting a motion to suppress, and omission of such findings does not warrant certiorari relie…
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“While some pretrial evidentiary rulings may qualify for certiorari, it must be remembered that the extraordinary writ is reserved for those situations where "there has been a violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice."”
The court restated the standard for certiorari review of pretrial evidentiary rulings from State v. Pettis.
The state appealed a trial court's order suppressing identification testimony. The trial court granted the motion to suppress but did not include deta…
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 Certiorari Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
ZEHMER, Judge.
We treat the state’s appeal from the lower court’s order suppressing identification testimony as a petition for certiorari, and grant review under our certiorari jurisdiction in accordance with State v. Pettis, 520 So. 2d 250 (Fla.1988). See State v. Arriagada, 518 So. 2d 918 (Fla.1988), affirming in part and quashing in part, State v. Arriagada, 508 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Upon consideration of the merits, we conclude that the trial court was not required by any rule or statute to set forth detailed findings of fact in the written order granting the motion to suppress. While it is preferable for the trial court to set forth such findings, the failure to do so does not rise to the standard set forth in Pettis. We conclude that the record before us fails to demonstrate that the lower court’s ruling constituted a departure from the essential requirements of law. See e.g., Judd v. State, 402 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); M.J.S. v. State, 386 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). In State v. Pettis, this court stated
While some pretrial evidentiary rulings may qualify for certiorari, it must be remembered that the extraordinary writ is reserved for those situations where “there has been a violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.”
520 So. 2d at 254. The state has not carried that burden in this case.
AFFIRMED.
THOMPSON and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. T.T., 594 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…ajority in footnote 2) is not the question. For this court to decide is whether the record establishes that the trial judge erred. He ruled that the evidence should be suppressed. He does not have to state his reasons or his findings. State v. Keel, 557 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). His ruling is presumed correct. Savage v. State, 588 So. 2d 975 (Fla.1991); Bonilla v. State, 579 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). We are bound to uphold his ruling.…
-
State v. Sowers, 763 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…witnesses, Russell Byrd. See Fla.R.Crim. P. 3.220(n) (providing sanctions for discovery rule violation). Treating this appeal as a petition for writ of common-law certiorari pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.040(c) and State v. Keel, 557 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), we conclude that the State has not met its [*396] heavy burden to demonstrate that the lower tribunal departed from the essential requirements of law in granting the motion in limine excluding Byrd’s testimony after the court co…
-
State v. Houston, 616 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…ute the following. In light of this opinion, we deny the motion for rehearing. The State has filed a notice of appeal from a decision to suppress identification [*596] testimony. We treat the notice as a petition for certiorari. See State v. Keel, 557 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 1st DCA1990); State v. Mendez, 423 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 4th DCA1982). After hearing testimony from the victim of a robbery and officers who investigated the incident, the trial court granted a defense motion to suppress the victim’s testimony th…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Pettis, 520 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1988)
- Judd v. State, 402 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- State v. Arriagada, 508 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- M. J. S. v. State, 386 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- State v. Arriagada, 518 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 1988)