Case ID: so2d_561/html/0597-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Maria Consuelo ESPINOSA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 88-918.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    April 3, 1990.
    Rehearing Denied June 22, 1990.
    Stephen J. Finta, Ft. Lauderdale, for appellant.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Joan L. Greenberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
    Before HUBBART, COPE and LEVY, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

We conclude that there was probable cause to arrest the defendant; that the trial court correctly denied the motion to suppress the defendant’s post-Miranda statements; and that there was ample proof of the corpus delicti. See Thomas v. State, 531 So.2d 708, 711 (Fla.1988).

Affirmed. 
      
      
        Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).