ALTON H. LITTLEFIELD, APPELLANT,

v.

CLAUDIA LITTLEFIELD, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• State v. Hinton, 305 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
  …d other evidence seized by the police from the defendant, his automobile or his premises”. This general allegation does not comply with the requirements of Rule 3.190(h) prescribing the contents of every motion to suppress. Cf. State v. Butterfield, 285 So. 2d 626 (Fla.App.1973). The state raises this noncompliance in this appeal, however, the record below does not indicate that this matter was ever properly brought to the attention of the trial judge in his determination as to the legal sufficiency of the mo…
• Dean v. State, 430 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
  …when combined with the motion’s bare-boned factual recital. As such, the trial court was authorized under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(h)(3) to deny summarily the motion to suppress. Herring v. State, 394 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); State v. Butterfield, 285 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). As a final blow to the suppression point, it is plain beyond doubt that the merits of the defendant’s search and seizure contentions on appeal [defendant’s main brief, pp. 15-17] have not been properly preserved for appellate r…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• State v. Williams, 538 So. 2d 1346 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
  …he reasons for suppression and a general statement of the facts on which the motion is based.” Although the rule provides that a motion is patently defective where it is not supported by specific reasons or factual allegations, State v. Butterfield, 285 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973), that is not the real issue here. Rather, the issue is whether the trial court can sua sponte amend the motion and consider other factors in ruling on it. State v. Hinton, 305 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), is helpful with regar…