Arnold v. State, s. 79-755
| Decision Date | 06 February 1980 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 79-755,79-756,s. 79-755 |
| Citation | 379 So.2d 1003 |
| Parties | Lawrence ARNOLD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jack O. Johnson, Public Defender, David A. Davis and Douglas A. Lockwood, Asst. Public Defenders, Bartow, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and James S. Purdy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
The state charged Lawrence Arnold with armed robbery and burglary. Arnold pled nolo contendere reserving his right to appeal the trial court's denial of his motions to suppress his confessions. 1 The trial court accepted Arnold's plea, adjudicated him guilty of both charges and sentenced him to concurrent fifteen year sentences. This timely appeal ensued.
Citing the supreme court's recent opinion in Brown v. State, 376 So.2d 382 (Fla.1979), the state argues that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain Arnold's appeal on the merits because his confessions could not have been dispositive as a matter of law. We agree.
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal and direct the trial court to allow Arnold 30 days from the date of our mandate to file a motion to withdraw his plea and set aside the judgment and sentence under the procedure outlined in Pittman v. State, No. 79-642, --- So.2d ---- (Fla.2d DCA 1980).
1 Arnold also reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motions to suppress physical evidence seized in searches by the police. On appeal, however, he challenges only the denial of the motions to suppress his confessions. Hence, his contention concerning suppression of physical evidence is deemed abandoned. See Ungaro v. West Palm Beach Biltmore Apartments, Inc., 61 So.2d 642 (Fla.1952).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Finney v. State
...2d DCA 1980); Pittman v. State, 382 So.2d 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Gray v. State, 381 So.2d 302 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Arnold v. State, 379 So.2d 1003 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). A defendant's understanding that he could appeal, incorrect because of clerical error, was sufficient to provide him the op......
-
Weber v. State, 85-2271
...3d DCA 1982); Sune v. State, 402 So.2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Hardison v. State, 385 So.2d 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Arnold v. State, 379 So.2d 1003 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). The only case unearthed by this court's research which actually reached the merits is Turner v. State, 429 So.2d 318 (Fla. 1......
-
Everett v. State, s. 86-2692
...in the light of Brown and consistent with our decisions in Hardison v. State, 385 So.2d 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), and Arnold v. State, 379 So.2d 1003 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), we would be warranted in dismissing the instant appeals. We have determined not to follow that course, however, because the......
-
Gomez v. State, 82-1584
...4th DCA 1982); Kjersgaard v. State, 383 So.2d 763 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Gray v. State, 381 So.2d 302 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Arnold v. State, 379 So.2d 1003 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). Instead, as should be obvious, implicit in our earlier affirmance of the trial court's denial of the defendants' motion ......