Legal Opinion

Lee v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided January 19, 1988No. 85-2612Published

1Per curiam

We relinquished jurisdiction to the trial court, and, pursuant to our directions, a de novo hearing on the defendant’s motion to suppress was conducted. See Lee v. State, 499 So.2d 66 (Fla.3d DCA 1987). The trial court again denied the motion to suppress, and we affirm. Roman v. State, 475 So.2d 1228 (Fla.1985); Kee v. State, 504 So.2d 1365 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Williams v. State, 403 So.2d 453 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); James v. State, 223 So.2d 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969).

Affirmed.

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Roman v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1985
  2. James v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1969
  3. Williams v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1981
  4. Kee v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1987