County Criminal Court: CRIMINAL LAW – Search and Seizure – Stop – Defendant’s act of repeatedly weaving both within and without of his lane was sufficient to establish a pattern of erratic driving justifying a stop. Judgment and sentence affirmed. Prewitt v. State, No. CRC 04-41 APANO, (Fla. 6th Cir.App.Ct. June 30, 2005).

 

 

 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY

 

 

SHELLY PREWITT

           

            Appellant,

Appeal No. CRC 04-41 APANO

UCN522004AP000041XXXXCR

v.

 

STATE OF FLORIDA

 

            Appellee.

_____________________________/

 

 

Opinion filed __________________.

 

Appeal from a judgment and sentence

entered by the Pinellas County Court

County Judge Paul Levine

 

Sean Kelley, Esq.

Attorney for appellant

 

Rex Blake, Esq.

Assistant State Attorney

 

ORDER AND OPINION

 

            (J. Demers)

 

            THIS MATTER is before the Court on the defendant’s appeal from a judgment and sentence entered by the Pinellas County Court. After reviewing the briefs and record, this Court affirms the judgment and sentence.

            The defendant pleaded no contest to DUI charges. He reserved his right to appeal the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. The defendant claims that the police had no valid reason to stop his vehicle. The standard of review in this case is de novo. See Conner v. State, 803 So.2d 598 (Fla. 2001).

            This Court’s review of the videotape reveals ample reason to stop the defendant’s vehicle. The defendant was repeatedly weaving both within and without of his lane. This was sufficient to establish a pattern of erratic driving, thereby justifying a stop. See Yanes v. State, 877 So.2d 25 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Moreover, the deputy testified that prior to activating the videotape the defendant made an improper turn and was speeding.[1] Any one of these reasons would have justified the stop. Therefore, the trial court was correct to deny the defendant’s motion to suppress.

            IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the judgment and sentence are affirmed.

            DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida this _____ day of June, 2005.

 

                                                                                                ________________________

                                                                                                            David A. Demers

                                                                                                            Circuit Judge

 

 

 

                                                                                                ________________________

                                                                                                            Robert J. Morris, Jr.

                                                                                                            Circuit Judge

 

 

 

                                                                                                ________________________

                                                                                                            Irene S. Sullivan

                                                                                                            Circuit Judge

 

cc:   State Attorney

 

        Sean Kelley, Esq.

 

        Judge Levine

           


[1] The defendant’s reliance upon Dorbin v. Dept. of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, 874 So.2d 1171 (Fla. 2003) is misplaced. In Dorbin it was not clear that the defendant was actually speeding --- the officer only wrote in his report that the defendant was driving at a high rate of speed. In the case at bar the deputy clearly testified that the defendant was speeding.