Robinson v. State, No. 1D03-4701.

CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM.
Citation885 So.2d 951
PartiesKendrick ROBINSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Decision Date28 October 2004
Docket NumberNo. 1D03-4701.

885 So.2d 951

Kendrick ROBINSON, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee

No. 1D03-4701.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

October 28, 2004.


885 So.2d 952
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Paula S. Saunders, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Charlie McCoy, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

PER CURIAM.

Appellee seeks clarification of this Court's opinion filed August 18, 2004, in which we reversed the denial of appellant's motion to suppress evidence. We grant the motion for clarification, and substitute the following.

Appellant, Kendrick Robinson, appeals from his conviction following his nolo contendere plea to one count of possession of methamphetamine. Appellant's plea was conditioned on the reservation of his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress, which is dispositive of the case. We reverse the denial of the motion with directions that the judgment and sentence be vacated.

Appellant was arrested May 6, 2003, and charged with possession of one pill of methamphetamine, a controlled substance, and resisting arrest without violence. In his motion to suppress evidence, appellant alleged that officers improperly arrested him on a warrant for violation of probation which had been served six days earlier, and was no longer active. The motion states that the same sheriff's office that arrested appellant on May 6, 2003, served the warrant six days earlier in circuit case 01-140CF. Appellant cited State v. White, 660 So.2d 664 (Fla.1995), for the proposition that his arrest was illegal because there was no active or valid warrant for his arrest.

The narrative portions of the reports prepared in connection with appellant's arrest reveal that the arresting officers observed appellant standing on the sidewalk at Buddy Parker Park in Jasper, Florida. The officers believed there was an active warrant for appellant's arrest and approached

885 So.2d 953
him for that reason. When the officers approached, appellant fled on foot. The officers gave chase, apprehended appellant, and placed him under arrest. During the ensuing search, a methamphetamine pill was discovered in appellant's possession. The methamphetamine pill is the subject of the motion to suppress evidence

At the suppression hearing, the prosecutor advised the trial court that "officers arrested Mr. Robinson under the belief that he had an active warrant. Upon arresting him, they found drugs and he was arrested on that charge as well." Defense counsel advised the court that six days prior to the arrest underlying this appeal, appellant was served with the warrant and a violation of probation hearing was held. Thus, there was no active warrant in existence on May 6, 2003, to justify appellant's arrest and the search which resulted in the discovery of the contraband. The prosecutor stipulated to the facts recited by defense counsel, but urged that appellant's flight raised suspicion that criminal activity was afoot, thus the seizure of drugs following appellant's arrest was proper. According to the prosecutor, the officers did not announce that they had a warrant; rather, they believed a valid warrant was outstanding when they approached appellant.

The facts underlying the motion to suppress were presented through representations and stipulations offered by the prosecutor and defense counsel. The trial court denied the motion to suppress...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • State v. Rand, CASE NO. 1D15–335
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • February 10, 2017
    ...to suppress evidence presents a mixed question of law and fact. Conn o r v. State , 803 So.2d 598, 608 (Fla. 2001) ; Robinson v. State , 885 So.2d 951, 953 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). The standard of review for factual findings is whether competent, substantial evidence supports the trial court's ......
  • Willingham v. City of Orlando, No. 5D05-736.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • May 12, 2006
    ...had executed it two years earlier. Once a warrant has been executed, it becomes void, or no longer active. See Robinson v. State, 885 So.2d 951, 954 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); State v. Gifford, 558 So.2d 444, 445 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). The Jibory court held that sovereign immunity would not protect......
  • Berry v. State, No. 1D10–2627.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • May 8, 2012
    ...application of the law to the facts to determine whether Deputy Murray lawfully conducted an investigatory stop. Robinson v. State, 885 So.2d 951, 953 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). To justify a Terry1 stop, a law enforcement officer must have a well-founded, articulable suspicion that the person det......
  • Jibory v. City of Jacksonville, No. 1D05-0846.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • December 30, 2005
    ...666 (Fla.1995) (noting that a warrant that had been served four days prior to the arrest in question was invalid); Robinson v. State, 885 So.2d 951, 954 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (noting that, once a warrant is executed, it is void or no longer active); State v. Gifford, 558 So.2d 444, 445 (Fla. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • State v. Rand, CASE NO. 1D15–335
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • February 10, 2017
    ...to suppress evidence presents a mixed question of law and fact. Conn o r v. State , 803 So.2d 598, 608 (Fla. 2001) ; Robinson v. State , 885 So.2d 951, 953 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). The standard of review for factual findings is whether competent, substantial evidence supports the trial court's ......
  • Willingham v. City of Orlando, No. 5D05-736.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • May 12, 2006
    ...had executed it two years earlier. Once a warrant has been executed, it becomes void, or no longer active. See Robinson v. State, 885 So.2d 951, 954 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); State v. Gifford, 558 So.2d 444, 445 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). The Jibory court held that sovereign immunity would not protect......
  • Berry v. State, No. 1D10–2627.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • May 8, 2012
    ...application of the law to the facts to determine whether Deputy Murray lawfully conducted an investigatory stop. Robinson v. State, 885 So.2d 951, 953 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). To justify a Terry1 stop, a law enforcement officer must have a well-founded, articulable suspicion that the person det......
  • Jibory v. City of Jacksonville, No. 1D05-0846.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • December 30, 2005
    ...666 (Fla.1995) (noting that a warrant that had been served four days prior to the arrest in question was invalid); Robinson v. State, 885 So.2d 951, 954 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (noting that, once a warrant is executed, it is void or no longer active); State v. Gifford, 558 So.2d 444, 445 (Fla. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT