Espinosa v. State (561 So. 2d 597, 1990)

PER CURIAM.

We conclude that there was probable cause to arrest the defendant; that the trial court correctly denied the motion to suppress the defendant’s post-Miranda statements; and that there was ample proof of the corpus delicti. See Thomas v. State, 531 So.2d 708, 711 (Fla.1988).

Affirmed.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).