Case Name: Tulio ALZATE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1985-02-26
Citations: 466 So. 2d 331
Docket Number: No. 84-404
Parties: Tulio ALZATE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before HENDRY, BASKIN and JOR-GENSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 466
Pages: 331–333

Head Matter:
Tulio ALZATE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 84-404.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Feb. 26, 1985.
Rehearing Denied April 15, 1985.
Theodore Simon, Philadelphia, Pa., Mark L. Angert, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Henry Barks-dale, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before HENDRY, BASKIN and JOR-GENSON, JJ.

Opinion:
JORGENSON, Judge.
The issues in this case turn on the credibility of the investigating officers and that of the defendant regarding the voluntariness of the defendant's consent to search. The trial judge who heard the motion to suppress (Judge Scott) made specific findings which resolved those issues adversely to the defendant. Credibility determinations made by a trial court will not be disturbed on appeal. See Chesnut v. State, 404 So.2d 1064 (Fla.1981); State v. Battleman, 374 So.2d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
The trial court properly considered the totality of the circumstances in light of Restrepo v. State, 438 So.2d 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), and concluded the state had satisfied its heavy burden on the issue of voluntary consent. The trial court correctly denied the motion to suppress. The judgment and sentence entered thereon are, therefore,
Affirmed.