# Henderson v. State

> District Court of Appeal of Florida · August 21, 2013 · 135 So. 3d 1092

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4809863

## Case

- **Full name:** Little R. HENDERSON v. STATE of Florida
- **Court:** District Court of Appeal of Florida
- **Decided:** August 21, 2013
- **Citations:** 135 So. 3d 1092; 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 13061; 2013 WL 4436568
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Wallace
- **Judges:** Black, Casanueva, Only, Wallace
- **Cited by:** 4 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4809863

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that the motion seeking suppression of evidence obtained from a computer tablet was not dispositive as the State "may have [nonetheless] been able to proceed to trial" based upon the additional evidence possessed by the State
- holding that where “there was no finding or agreement that the motion was disposi-tive, [the defendant] may not appeal the denial of the motion”

## Opinion text

WALLACE, Judge,
Concurring in result only.
I concur with the majority that Mr. Henderson failed to preserve for appellate review the issue of whether the evidence gathered from an iPad was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. For this reason, I agree that Mr. Henderson’s judgment and sentences must be affirmed. In my view, because Mr. Henderson has failed to preserve any issue for review, it is unnecessary to reach *1098 the various additional matters discussed in the per curiam opinion and in Judge Ca-sanueva’s concurring opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4809863. Public record. Not legal advice.