# Brown v. State

> District Court of Appeal of Florida · November 28, 1984 · 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2505

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7537860

## Case

- **Full name:** Scott Harlan BROWN and Thomas Gordon Reed v. STATE of Florida
- **Court:** District Court of Appeal of Florida
- **Decided:** November 28, 1984
- **Citations:** 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2505; 459 So. 2d 1159; 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 16619
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Anstead
- **Judges:** Anstead, Dell, Hurley
- **Cited by:** 0 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/7537860

## Opinion text

ANSTEAD, Chief Judge,
specially concurring:
I concur in the majority’s affirmance of the trial court’s actions in denying motions to suppress and for discharge. Because there is evidence to support the trial court’s ruling on the motion to suppress, we are not free to disturb that ruling. I do *1160 not feel that the trial court erred in denying the motion for discharge because I do not believe the rule relied on by the appellants, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(g), applies to the facts involved herein. The appellants, pursuant to no contest pleas, were adjudged guilty and sentenced. In a previous appeal this court did not disturb the convictions and sentences but merely directed that an evidentiary hearing be conducted on a motion to suppress. 409 So.2d 255 (1982). For that reason I do not believe that Rule 3.191(g), requiring a new trial to be conducted within 90 days of mandate, applies to this case.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7537860. Public record. Not legal advice.