F.J.R. v. State

F.J.R. (defendant) appeals his judgment and sentence which were entered by the trial court after he pled nolo contendré to the charges of possession of cocaine and resisting an officer without violence. The defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. We agree and, therefore, reverse.

A ruling on a motion to suppress comes to the appellate court as presumptively correct as to disputed facts and all reasonable inferences and deductions drawn from them; however, the trial court’s application of the law to the facts is reviewed under the de novo standard. Murphy…