Daizi v. StateDaizi v. State
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and James H. Greason, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before HUBBART, C.J., and SCHWARTZ and BASKIN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
The final judgment of conviction and sentences under review by this appeal are affirmed upon a holding that: (a) it appears with unmistakable clarity that the trial court understood its responsibility to determine the voluntariness of the defendant‘s confession and properly discharged such responsibility at the conclusion of the hearing on the motion to suppress herein by stating that it accepted the testimony of the interrogating police officer herein [which established the voluntariness of said confession] and that it was denying the motion to suppress, as it appears that a specific trial court finding of voluntariness under these circumstances is not fatal to the admission of said confession and evidence, Peterson v. State, 382 So. 2d 701 (Fla.
Affirmed.