Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

547 So. 2d 323

547 So.2d 323

14 Fla.L.Weekly 1894

Richardson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided August 10, 1989

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1989-08-10

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently February 2000

3 state decisions

Relies on State v. Plachta · 402 So. 2d 1216 - State v. Haugee

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1989-08-10

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

ORFINGER, Judge.

¶1The defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction entered upon a plea of nolo contendere after having reserved the right to appeal his motion to suppress evidence. Although not clearly recited in the transcript of the plea hearing, it is obvious that at some time this right had been reserved, because at sentencing, the trial court advised the defendant that “your attorney has reserved the right to appeal on your behalf the suppression hearing.” The motion was found to be dispositive. The State has not challenged the appellant’s right to appeal.

¶2The trial court’s order denying the motion to suppress is affirmed. The facts in this case are almost identical to those in State v. Haugee, 402 So.2d 1216 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), review denied, 415 So.2d 1360 (Fla.1982). Here, in executing a valid search warrant which authorized entry upon and a search of the specifically described premises “together with the yard and curtilage thereof, and all vehicles thereon ...” for “controlled substances [and] narcotics paraphernalia ...” the officers searched the appellant’s vehicle which was in the yard at the time, and discovered the contraband which appellant sought to suppress.

¶3AFFIRMED.

DANIEL, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur.
/547/so2d/323 · .json · Public domain