THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
v.
LAZARO PRIETO
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's ruling on the motion to suppress is affirmed.
[1] A trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress is reviewed under a mixed standard: the trial court's factual findings are presumed correct if supported by competent, subs…
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“A trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress comes to this Court clothed with a presumption of correctness and, as the reviewing court, we must interpret the evidence and reasonable inferences and deductions derived therefrom in a manner most favorable to sustaining the trial court's ruling.”
Standard of review for motion to suppress rulings
Lazaro Prieto appealed a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress in a criminal case from Miami-Dade County.…
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 Mixed Question Of Law And Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed August 6, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D23-1678 Lower Tribunal No. F22-13667 The State of Florida, Appellant, vs. Lazaro Prieto, Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Milton Hirsch, Judge. James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Kayla H. McNab, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant. Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Nicholas A. Lynch, Assistant Public Defender, for appellee. Before FERNANDEZ, LOBREE and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See State v. Milewski, 194 So. 3d 376, 378 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (“This Court's review of the trial court's ruling on the motion to suppress involves a mixed question of law and fact. The trial court's findings of fact are presumed correct if competent, substantial evidence supports those findings. The trial court's application of law to those facts is reviewed de novo.”)(citation omitted); San Martin v. State, 717 So. 2d 462, 469 (Fla. 1998) (“A trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress comes to this Court clothed with a presumption of correctness and, as the reviewing court, we must interpret the evidence and reasonable inferences and deductions derived therefrom in a manner most favorable to sustaining the trial court's ruling.”). 2