GABRIEL T. AMPARO, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Maryland V. Buie cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Chief Judge.
Gabriel Amparo appeals his conviction for armed robbery. We reject his arguments but point out that although the trial court erroneously denied Mr. Amparo’s motion to suppress, the error was harmless. Accordingly, we affirm.
Mr. Amparo correctly argues that the trial court erroneously denied his motion to suppress based on an unlawful protective sweep of the house. See Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 110 S.Ct. 1093, 108 L.Ed.2d 276 (1990). Additionally, the State failed to establish that the subsequently given consent to search the house was voluntary. See Findley v. State, 771 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). However, the ruling on the motion to suppress the evidence found in the house was not dis-positive of Mr. Amparo’s criminal charge and is subject to a harmless error analysis. We conclude that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986).
Affirmed.
ALTENBERND and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Amato Scott v. State, 151 So. 3d 567 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…ts to support the trial court’s findings. To the contrary, a de novo standard of review is applied to findings of law. Delhall v. State, 95 So. 3d 134, 150 (Fla.2012). A ruling on a motion to suppress is reviewed for harmless error. Amparo v. State, 818 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). General Rule as to Voluntariness In Deviney v. State, 112 So. 3d 57, 74 (Fla.2013), the supreme court determined [*574] that the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 9 of the Florida Constitu…
-
Drejka v. State, 330 So. 3d 1055 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)…State never claimed that Mr. Drejka perceived the incident in slow-motion. And, "the time-lapse nature of a video does not make the video per se inadmissible." Smith v. Geico Cas. Co., 127 So. 3d 808, 811 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). In Jefferson v. State, 818 So. 2d 565, 566 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), for instance, the court found "no error in allowing in evidence a copy of a 'time lapse' videotape over the objection that fewer frames per second in the original videotape (than standard videotaping entails) 'inaccurately…
-
Smith v. GEICO Cas. Co., 127 So. 3d 808 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…a predicate for its admission that the [videotape] fairly and accurately represents what it purports to depict.” Id. at 536. Furthermore, the time-lapse nature of a video does not make the video per se inadmissible. See generally Jefferson v. State, 818 So. 2d 565, 566 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (“Each case in which a time[-]lapse videotape or a copy thereof has been received in evidence over objection supports affirming here. Cases in which no objection to such tapes was noted also support the view that time[-]laps…
Authorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (U.S. 1990)
- Sego v. City OF Fernandina Beach, 771 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- McDOWELL v. McDOWELL, 771 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)