State v. Houston, 92-1612
| Decision Date | 07 April 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-1612,92-1612 |
| Citation | 616 So.2d 595 |
| Parties | 18 Fla. L. Week. D904 STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Donald HOUSTON, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
We withdraw our previous opinion and substitute the following. In light of this opinion, we deny the motion for rehearing.
The State has filed a notice of appeal from a decision to suppress identification testimony. We treat the notice as a petition for certiorari. See State v. Keel, 557 So.2d 907 (Fla. 1st DCA1990); State v. Mendez, 423 So.2d 621 (Fla. 4th DCA1982).
After hearing testimony from the victim of a robbery and officers who investigated the incident, the trial court granted a defense motion to suppress the victim's testimony that defendant was the person who robbed him. The court found that the procedures used by the officers were impermissibly suggestive and that there was a substantial probability of misidentification. The state argues that the trial court erred.
A decision on a motion to suppress comes to us with a presumption of correctness, and we interpret the evidence and reasonable inferences in favor of the trial court's findings. McNamara v. State, 357 So.2d 410 (Fla.1978). The trial judge's finding that the show-up in this case was unreasonably suggestive is a factual resolution within the presumption. The state's attack on it here is little more than a quarrel with his view of the evidence. Hence the state has failed to demonstrate error, let alone the kind of departure from the essential requirements of law necessary to certiorari review.
CERTIORARI DENIED.
STONE and FARMER, JJ., and WALDEN, JAMES H., Senior Judge, concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Porter v. State
...See McNamara v. State, 357 So.2d 410, 412 (Fla.1978); Glover v. State, 677 So.2d 374, 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); State v. Houston, 616 So.2d 595, 596 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). While we are required to accept the trial court's determination of the historical facts leading to the search, a defendant......
-
State v. JD, 4D01-316.
...McNamara v. State, 357 So.2d 410, 412 (Fla.1978),Glover v. State, 677 So.2d 374, 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), and State v. Houston, 616 So.2d 595, 596 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)). While an appellate court is required to accept the trial court's determination of the historical facts leading to the sear......
-
Williams v. State, 4D04-898.
...appeal. A trial court's decision on a motion to suppress arrives at this court with a presumption of correctness. See State v. Houston, 616 So.2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). We review such orders de novo. See Harris v. State, 761 So.2d 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA The first motion to suppress addressed ......
-
State v. McCutcheon
...1171 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). A trial court's decision on a motion to suppress bears a presumption of correctness. See State v. Houston, 616 So.2d 595, 596 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). This case is controlled by Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 111 S.Ct. 1801, 114 L.Ed.2d 297 (1991). In Jimeno, the Cou......