Court Opinion

ID: 9381235
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-22 15:03:46.84781+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:31.314727
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                        Opinion filed March 22, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D22-1913
                      Lower Tribunal No. F10-23279
                          ________________

                            Neftali DeJesus,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                         The State of Florida,
                                  Appellee.

      An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from
the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Mavel Ruiz, Judge.

     Neftali DeJesus, in proper person.

     Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, HENDON and MILLER, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.
      Affirmed.   See Petion v. State, 48 So. 3d 726, 730 (Fla. 2010)

(acknowledging that in a nonjury case there is a rebuttable presumption that

the trial court based its decision upon admissible evidence and disregarded

any inadmissible evidence; “if a trial judge receives evidence as the finder of

fact and hears inadmissible evidence, such as through a suppression

hearing, a proffer, a motion in limine, or prior to sustaining an objection to

the evidence, the judge is generally presumed to have disregarded the

improper evidence. Therefore, any error in the trial judge's exposure to this

improper evidence is deemed harmless”; further, where the trial court, sitting

as factfinder, makes an express statement on the record that erroneously

admitted evidence was not considered or did not contribute to the court’s

decision, any error in the admission of that evidence will ordinarily be

presumed harmless, in the absence of a showing that the trial court actually

relied upon the erroneous evidence in reaching its determination); King v.

State, 988 So. 2d 111, 113 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (noting that “in a bench trial,

there is a presumption that the trial court disregards any erroneously

admitted evidence” and further noting that the trial court “specifically stated

that it was not considering testimony other than that directly related to the

murder”).

                                      2