With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and weight of the evidence presented in a suppression hearing; that is the exclusive province of the county court judge. State v. Polak, 598 So.2d 150, 152 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). A judge acting as fact-finder is not required to believe the testimony of police officers in a suppression hearing, even when that is the only evidence presented; just as a jury may disbelieve evidence presented by the state even if it is uncontra-dicted, so too the judge may disbelieve the only evidence offered in a suppression hearing. State v. Paul, 638 So.2d 537 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), rev. denied, 654 So.2d 131 (Fla. 1995). The circuit court sitting in its appellate capacity may not reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the fact-finder. See Hart v. State, 661 So.2d 54 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (<HOLDING>). Smiddy v. State, 627 So.2d 1257 (Fla. 3d DCA

A: holding that circuit court is prohibited from reweighing facts presented at suppression hearing and that circuit court may not attribute more significance to certain facts than county court in order to reach contradictory conclusion
B: holding that a transfer order issued by a district court in another circuit is reviewable only in the circuit of the transferor district court
C: holding that rule 32 petition should have been granted where defendant was convicted in circuit court on indictment entered while case was on appeal from transfer order because circuit court lacked jurisdiction where we remanded the case to the juvenile court for further proceedings
D: holding that the appellants claim that the circuit court failed to make specific findings of fact relating to issues raised at an evidentiary hearing on the appellants postconviction petition was not preserved for review because the appellant did not raise the issue in the circuit court
A.