TAURUS LEJUANE JERIDO, 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.
The trial court reversibly erred by applying the wrong standard when ruling on the motion to suppress, specifically by deferring factual issues to the jury.
Appellant was charged with drug offenses following a traffic stop. He filed a motion to suppress the seized evidence, but the trial court indicated fa…
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.
Following the denial of his dispositive motion to suppress, Taurus Lejuane Jeri-do, Appellant, appeals from his judgments and sentences for possession of cocaine with intent to sell, possession of metham-phetamines, and possession of marijuana with intent to sell. Appellant argues that the trial court erred in applying the wrong standard when ruling on his motion to suppress the evidence seized as a result of a traffic stop. We agree, and, accordingly, reverse and remand for further proceedings. We decline to address Appellant’s remaining arguments on appeal.
At the suppression hearing, the trial court informed Appellant that his motion raised an issue of fact that was “up to the jury” to determine. Thereafter, Appellant entered a plea of nolo contendere to the three counts, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress as dispositive of the case.
The trial court’s remark at the suppression hearing indicates that it did not utilize the proper standard for resolving a motion to suppress. When ruling on a motion to suppress, it is the responsibility of the trial judge, not the jury, to resolve issues of fact. Ray v. State, 896 So.2d 974, 975 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Vasta v. State, 662 So.2d 1327, 1328 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Johnson v. State, 566 So.2d 888, 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Parlee v. State, 899 So.2d 458, 460 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). The trial court in the instant case reversibly erred in determining that questions of fact in a motion to suppress were matters for the jury to resolve. Accordingly, we RE*852VERSE and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BENTON, LEWIS, and CLARK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wilson v. State, 191 So. 3d 537 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…pression hearing [was] more credible than that of the Defendant and his mother.” It is well-established “[w]hen ruling on a motion to suppress, it is the responsibility of the trial judge, not the jury, to resolve issues of fact.”. Jerido v. State, 15 So. 3d 851, 851 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). As the Florida Supreme Court has stated: We recognize and- honor the trial court’s superior vantage point in assessing the credibility of witnesses and in making ‘ findings of fact. Thé deference that appellate courts affo…
Authorities Cited
- Hastings v. State, 899 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Shervin Johnson v. State, 566 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Vasta v. State, 662 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Hayes v. State, 896 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)