Defendant’s vehicle appeared to be speeding. Detective Rylott had to drive approximately 50 m.p.h. to catch up to the Defendant’s vehicle.... While the Detective testified that he observed the Defendant speeding, he did not testify as to the Defendant’s actual speed.” We have reviewed the transcript and have determined that the trial court’s factual findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence. See State v. Pruitt, 967 So.2d 1021, 1023 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (recognizing that there is a presumption of correctness with regard to trial court’s determination of facts where those factual findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence and that the trial court’s application of the law to the facts is reviewed de novo); Bravo v. State, 963 So.2d 370, 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (<HOLDING>). However, we hold that the trial court
holding that appellate review of hearsay issues is de novo with no presumption of correctness holding that on review of a motion to suppress the appellate court is to give deference to a trial courts factual findings but legal conclusions are reviewed de novo holding that we review legal conclusions of the court of federal claims de novo holding that trial courts determination of facts has a presumption of correctness but trial courts legal conclusions are subject to de novo review holding that appellate courts may review trial courts legal conclusions to determine their correctness