D.K.G. v. State, 84-360
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
| Writing for the Court | COBB |
| Citation | 460 So.2d 549 |
| Parties | D.K.G., a child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. 84-360,84-360 |
| Decision Date | 13 December 1984 |
Page 549
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Fifth District.
Page 550
James Russo, Public Defender, and Robert M. Moletteire, Asst. Public Defender, Titusville, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Kenneth McLaughlin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.
COBB, Chief Judge.
The first issue we must consider on this appeal is whether or not the minor defendant, D.K.G., has properly reserved for appeal a legally dispositive issue following a nolo contendere plea. See Brown v. State, 376 So.2d 382 (Fla.1979). Under the rule as set forth in Brown, the trial judge has wide discretion to accept or reject an Ashby 1 nolo plea based upon his perception of the dispositive nature vel non of the legal issue reserved for appeal.
In the instant case, there was no stipulation or express finding by the trial court that the suppression ruling which D.K.G. seeks to appeal would be dispositive of the case. See Alexander v. State, 399 So.2d 110 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Snell v. State, 388 So.2d 1353 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Hardison v. State, 385 So.2d 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). It is therefore contended by the state that we should dismiss this appeal on that basis. See Robinson v. State, 373 So.2d 898 (Fla.1979). The transcript of the plea taken on January 25, 1984, shows that at time of trial, the attorney for D.K.G. apprised the trial court that the defendant child was ready to enter a plea, and then said:
Your Honor, at this time in light of the motion, the child wishes to enter a plea of no contest and we would request for the record to reserve his right to appeal your ruling on the motion.
The motion referred to in the above statement was a motion to suppress evidence acquired during an investigatory stop of the child, which was heard and denied by the trial court immediately prior to the proffered plea. The court responded to the proffer by saying, "All right," and the court then proceeded to establish the voluntariness of the plea. The state made no comment in response to defense counsel's request to reserve the right to appeal the trial court's ruling on the motion to suppress. Nothing explicit was said by the defense, the state, or the court about the dispositive nature of the ruling on the suppression motion.
In Leisure v. State, 429 So.2d 434 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), review denied, 449 So.2d 264 (Fla.1984), the defendant sought to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weber v. State, No. 85-2271
...the issue on appeal was not dispositive below. See Carr, supra; Duckworth v. State, 469 So.2d 913 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); D.K.G. v. State, 460 So.2d 549 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Banks v. State, 467 So.2d 386 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Finney v. State, 420 So.2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Sune v. State, 402......
-
Seabrook v. State, No. 92-413
...review. See Sharpe v. State, 589 So.2d 964 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Everett v. State, 535 So.2d 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); D.K.G. v. State, 460 So.2d 549 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). Accordingly, this appeal is...
-
Weber v. State, No. 85-2271
...the issue on appeal was not dispositive below. See Carr, supra; Duckworth v. State, 469 So.2d 913 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); D.K.G. v. State, 460 So.2d 549 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Banks v. State, 467 So.2d 386 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Finney v. State, 420 So.2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Sune v. State, 402......
-
Seabrook v. State, No. 92-413
...review. See Sharpe v. State, 589 So.2d 964 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Everett v. State, 535 So.2d 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); D.K.G. v. State, 460 So.2d 549 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). Accordingly, this appeal is...