PER CURIAM.
In this direct criminal appeal, appellant raises two issues: whether it was error to deny his motion to suppress evidence, because the state failed to establish that his consent to search was given intelligently and voluntarily; and whether the written sentence imposed should be corrected because it is inconsistent with the trial court's oral sentence. We conclude that the trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion to suppress. Accordingly,...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
