LOG IN
    SELECT A PUBLICATION:
Florida Law Weekly
FLW Supplement
FLW Federal
User Name:
Password:
 

CONTACT
    Toll-free: 800-351-0917
    E-mail us
    Submit Opinions
PLACE AN ORDER
    Print Editions
    Online Editions
    Bound Volumes
    2/24-Hour Online Access
OUR PUBLICATIONS
    Florida Law Weekly
    FLW Supplement
    FLW Federal
    Collected Cases
    Sample FLW Online
RESEARCH
    Cross Citations
    Week In Review
    Rule Revisions
    Review Granted
    Current Issue Index
     Civil Section
     Criminal Section
    2023 Cumulative Index
     Civil Section
     Criminal Section
    Public Reprimands
    Florida Statutes
    Helpful Links


   
22 Fla. L. Weekly D2238c

STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, v. TIMOTHY J. HUNTON, Appellee. 2nd District. Criminal law -- Search and seizure -- Record supports trial court's oral denial of motion to suppress contraband found during initial search of main portion of defendant's residence on ground that defendant consented to search, and further supports suppression of contraband found after defendant told officers to get a warrant -- Written order to be corrected to conform to oral pronouncement -- State's claim that inevitable discovery rule should have been applied not considered on appeal where claim was not presented to trial court

STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, v. TIMOTHY J. HUNTON, Appellee. 2nd District. Case No. 96-04530. Opinion filed September 19, 1997. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County; Isaac Anderson, Jr., Judge. Counsel: Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Erica M. Raffel, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellant. Dennis J. Rehak, Fort Myers, for Appellee.

(FULMER, Judge.) The State has appealed the trial court's order granting Timothy J. Hunton's motion to suppress physical evidence seized from his house. We affirm the trial court's oral rulings and remand for entry of a corrected order which conforms to those rulings.

A detailed recitation of the facts is unnecessary. The issues about which the parties disagreed and upon which the trial court ruled were: (1) whether Hunton initially consented to the law enforcement officers' search of his house excluding the bedroom, and (2) whether, after that search, Hunton voluntarily consented to a search of the bedroom.

After hearing testimony at the suppression hearing, including an audio tape of the conversations between Hunton and the officers during the search process, the trial judge stated that he would not suppress the initial contraband which the officers found in the main portion of the house, ``but when the defendant said get a warrant, and I heard him clearly on the tape say that, and a warrant was not obtained and they seized the stuff, they should have gotten one; in other words, I'm suppressing that.'' The written order, however, grants Hunton's motion to suppress without making any exception for the evidence discovered in the initial search.

A trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress comes to the reviewing court ``clothed with a presumption of correctness, and the reviewing court must interpret the evidence and reasonable inferences and deductions derived therefrom in a manner most favorable to sustain the trial court's ruling.'' Owen v. State, 560 So. 2d 207, 210 (Fla. 1990); Hart v. State, 661 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). In this case, the record contains evidence to support the trial court's rulings on both issues involved in the motion to suppress.

On appeal, the State not only argues the issue of consent but also argues that the doctrine of inevitable discovery should be applied to reverse the trial court's ruling. ``Except in cases of fundamental error, appellate courts will not consider an issue that has not been presented to the lower court in a manner that specifically addresses the contentions asserted.'' Nevels v. State, 685 So. 2d 856, 857 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (citations omitted).

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's conclusions announced at the suppression hearing, but remand for entry of a corrected written order to conform to the court's oral rulings. (CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., Concur.)

* * *