Blalock v. State, No. 1D19-3398
Citation | 297 So.3d 688 |
Decision Date | 10 June 2020 |
Docket Number | No. 1D19-3398 |
Parties | Eddie Roger BLALOCK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and John Villafrate, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and David Welch, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Appellant, Eddie Roger Blalock, appeals the trial court's judgment and sentence entered in his violation of probation case and in his new law offense case where he was charged with possession of a controlled substance. He argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to recuse filed in both cases and that it subsequently conducted a plea colloquy that was legally insufficient. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment and sentence as to the violation of probation case, but we are constrained to reverse and remand as to the new law offense case.
We affirm the judgment and sentence as to Appellant's violation of probation case, entered following his plea, because a ruling on a motion to disqualify is not dispositive and he failed to preserve the argument that the plea colloquy was legally insufficient. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A) ( ); see also Zambuto v. State , 731 So. 2d 46, 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) ( ); Vito v. State , 270 So. 3d 1287, 1288–89 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) ( ).
On the other hand, as the State concedes, the record reflects that Appellant was not sworn in, he did not enter a plea in the new law offense case, and he was not informed of the consequences of entering a plea. Yet, the parties and the trial court proceeded at the sentencing hearing under the assumption that Appellant had also entered a plea in the new law offense case. See Haug v. State , 151 So. 3d 560, 561 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) ( ); see also Davis v. State , 187 So. 3d 1284, 1284 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wagner v. State
...reason for denial shall be stated, and an order denying the motion shall not take issue with the motion." See also Blalock v. State , 297 So. 3d 688, 690 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) ("[W]hen a trial court looks beyond the legal sufficiency of a motion for disqualification and attempts to refute the......