Mikell v. State

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-*844denee.” Escobar v. State, 699 So.2d 988, 992-93 (Fla.1997).

Affirmed.