Case Name: The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. James F. SCHMITZ, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1984-06-12
Citations: 450 So. 2d 1254
Docket Number: No. 84-117
Parties: The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. James F. SCHMITZ, Appellee.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 450
Pages: 1254–1255

Head Matter:
The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. James F. SCHMITZ, Appellee.
No. 84-117.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
June 12, 1984.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Julie S. Thornton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, Rory S. Stein, Asst. Public Defender, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.

Opinion:
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
The state appeals from a pre-trial order in a manslaughter-DUI case which suppressed the result of a blood alcohol test on the ground that the person who took the sample from the defendant was not authorized under Sec. 316.1932(l)(f)(2), Fla.Stat. (1981). We affirm because (a) the state attorney interposed no objection below and indeed specifically agreed that the motion to suppress was well taken, State v. Evans, 388 So.2d 1104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); and (b) on the merits, the ruling was entirely correct. State v. Roose, 450 So.2d 861 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).
Affirmed,
. Whether the state's attempt to reverse an order on appeal which it represented was correct to the trial court is characterized as merely "unseemly," Finney v. State, 420 So.2d 639, 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (Pearson, J., concurring spe-dally), or in the more pejorative terms it seems to warrant, such a change-of-face-and-heart will not be permitted to succeed. See State v. Belien, 379 So.2d 446 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).