Mikell v. State
Mikell v. State
699 So. 2d 843; 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 11116; 1997 WL 600300
(Southern Reporter, Second Series)
Mikell v. State
Opinion of the Court
We affirm defendant’s conviction. Based on the record before the trial court, we hold that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to suppress. See Escobar v. State, 699 So.2d 984 (Fla. 1997); Savage v. State, 588 So.2d 975 (Fla. 1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 943, 112 S.Ct. 1493, 117 L.Ed.2d 634 (1992); McNamara v. State, 357 So.2d 410 (Fla. 1978). The “trial court’s decision was based on competent substantial evi-
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.