From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hendrix v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Sep 28, 1984
456 So. 2d 494 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

Opinion

No. 83-2404.

August 17, 1984. Rehearing Denied September 28, 1984.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Polk County, John H. Dewell and William K. Love, JJ.

Jesse J. Bennett, Jr., of Bennett Bennett, P.A., Winter Haven, and John C. Wilkins, III, of Wilkins Moorman, Bartow, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William E. Taylor, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.


Appellant was charged with carrying a concealed weapon and trafficking in cocaine, violations of sections 790.02 and 893.135, Florida Statutes (1983), respectively. He entered a nolo contendere plea to the charges, specifically reserving the right to appeal the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search of an automobile. Appellant appeals only his conviction of trafficking. We hold that the trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion which was dispositive of his trafficking charge.

The police clearly had probable cause to believe the automobile contained, and was being used to transport, contraband. See United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982); Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925); Adoue v. State, 408 So.2d 567 (Fla. 1981); State v. Gillum, 428 So.2d 755 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). See also § 933.19(1), Fla. Stat. (1983) (specifically adopting, as the law of Florida, the law set forth in Carroll v. United States).

We disagree with appellant's argument that the automobile was not "movable" and therefore did not meet the exigent circumstances requirement of Chambers. The mere fact that the automobile was in a garage being repaired did not preclude the trial court's apparent determination that there were exigent circumstances. The record shows that the repairs were about to be completed and that a friend of appellant was arriving shortly to take possession of the car.

Therefore, we affirm appellant's conviction for trafficking in cocaine.

AFFIRMED.

SCHEB, C.J., and CAMPBELL and LEHAN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Hendrix v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Sep 28, 1984
456 So. 2d 494 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)
Case details for

Hendrix v. State

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM PAUL HENDRIX, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Sep 28, 1984

Citations

456 So. 2d 494 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

Citing Cases

Vessel Described as One 36 Foot Mirage, BHN CBD 36011M831 Displaying Florida Registration Numbers FL5182 Em v. State, Department of Natural Resources

The appellant urges that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the forfeiture proceeding…

State v. Waterman

A vehicle's ready mobility, as well as its pervasive regulation by the state, as Carroll recognized, has long…