Case Name: Alexander SUAREZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1994-11-23
Citations: 644 So. 2d 1038
Docket Number: Nos. 94-390, 94-387, 94-143, 94-129, 93-1959 and 93-1976
Parties: Alexander SUAREZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before BASKIN, LEVY and GREEN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 644
Pages: 1038–1038

Head Matter:
Alexander SUAREZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Nos. 94-390, 94-387, 94-143, 94-129, 93-1959 and 93-1976.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Nov. 23, 1994.
Russell K. Rosenthal, Miami, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Leslie Schreiber, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.
Before BASKIN, LEVY and GREEN, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We affirm defendant's convictions and sentences. We find that the record supports the trial court's order denying defendant's motion to suppress, filed in defendant's pending cases. State v. Navarro, 464 So.2d 137 (Fla.3d DCA 1984). "The probable cause standard for a law enforcement officer to make a legal arrest is whether the- officer has reasonable grounds to believe the person has committed a felony." Joseph v. State, 593 So.2d 594, 595 (Fla.3d DCA 1992), citing Blanco v. State, 452 So.2d 520 (Fla.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1181, 105 S.Ct. 940, 83 L.Ed.2d 953 (1985). The record supports the trial court's conclusion, in this regard. Moreover, the record presents no evidence to support a finding that defendant's confessions were coerced. See Bruno v. State, 574 So.2d 76 (Fla.1991).
Defendant's remaining points raised on appeal lack merit. § 775.084(2), Fla.Stat. (1991); § 787.01(1)(a)2., Fla.Stat. (1991); Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).
Affirmed.