State v. Butterfield, 73-1065
| Citation | 285 So.2d 626 |
| Decision Date | 23 November 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 73-1065,73-1065 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Judith BUTTERFIELD and Dean Edward Walker, Appellees. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Philip S. Shailer, State's Atty., and Jon H. Gutmacher, Asst. State's Atty., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Bruce M. Lyons of DiGiulian, Spellacy, Bernstein, Lyons & Sanders, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.
Defendants, Judith Butterfield and Dean Edward Walker, were charged with marijuana possession. They made a motion to suppress the contraband which had been seized by the state pursuant to a search warrant. The only grounds or reasons stated were these:
1. The Search Warrant is insufficient on its face;
2. There was not probable cause for believing the existence of the grounds on which the warrant was executed;
3. The warrant was illegally executed.
Patently, the motion was defective as it contained only legal conclusions which were in nowise supported by specific reasons or allegation of fact.
The trial court granted the motion and suppressed the evidence without comment or stated reason. The state appeals. We reverse and remand.
At the outset, we note the appellate difficulty, or rather impossibility, of assessing and coming to grips with the problem because of a basic procedural omission which leaves us without knowledge as to the specifics of the motion and resulting order. Thus, counsel here and this court are left to grope and speculate in the dark as to the merits and demerits of the appeal. We respectfully decline to enter into such exercise because it would render our ultimate decision one based on guesswork. There are a myriad of legal propositions that attend searches and seizures and it is because of this the procedural rules, later detailed, provide that assaults be definitively supported so that same may be later properly reviewed.
We make these observations:
First: the motion to suppress was legally insufficient because of its lack of facts and should have been denied in the first instance without prejudice just as a matter of procedure, as required by Rule 1.190(h)(2) and (3), Fla.R.Cr.P., 33 F.S.A.:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dean v. State, 79-937
...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 content......
-
State v. Russo
...or allusions to the original information were proper. We hold that the motion to dismiss should have been denied. Cf. State v. Butterfield, Fla.App.1973, 285 So.2d 626. The more serious question here is this: After the reversal of a plea bargain based conviction of a lesser offense included......
-
State v. Williams
...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 consi......
-
State v. Hinton
...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 prop......