Debiasio v. State, 4D00-3920.

Decision Date13 June 2001
Docket NumberNo. 4D00-3920.,4D00-3920.
Citation789 So.2d 1061
PartiesGlenn D. DEBIASIO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Joseph R. Chloupek, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melanie Ann Dale, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

STONE, J.

We reverse the judgment of conviction, on seven counts of burglary and two counts of grand theft, entered on Debiasio's plea of no contest.

Error occurred in the denial of Debiasio's pre-trial motion to preclude the state's use of a letter from Debiasio to the state attorney, which he claims was an offer of settlement. The letter states, in pertinent part:

As per my previous letter that I sent to your office, my clear intentions are outlined in that letter. Again, the reason for that letter was not to merely mask the seriousness of the offenses to which I am charged. It is an attempt to clear the air so to speak, of my ugly drug and alcohol addictions. My new found strenght [sic] orginates [sic] from God, and doing what is right, facing the truth and accepting responsibility for what I've done, was a giant step for me.
My intentions outlined in my previous letter to you are in order to preserve my well being, and that of my family. I wrote to you in confidence, with the hopes of arriving at some sort of resolution, without neglecting the facts of the seriousness of these offenses.
What I want to arrive at, as far as agreement, is that I completely cooperate with the State of Florida and its investigation of the previously named individuals, in return for a sentence that is to be served concurrently with the sentence I'm already serving in Ohio, and to protect myself while in the custody of Florida law enforcement officers, and protecting the name and location of my family.

(emphasis added).

Preliminarily, we reject the state's argument that the order was not dispositive and, therefore, not appealable after Debiasio's no contest plea. In Brown v. State, 376 So.2d 382 (Fla.1979), the supreme court addressed the question of whether the denial of a motion to suppress the defendant's confession would be considered dispositive for purposes of appeal after a no contest plea. See id. The court, recognizing that resolution of certain motions1 are obviously dispositive, held, in the case of a confession, that without knowing the extent of the other evidence the state intended to produce, it was impossible to tell whether the decision would be dispositive. See id. Therefore, the court held that an order denying a motion to suppress a confession is not dispositive. See id. However, the court added,

Under this rule, the trial judge will have wide discretion to accept or reject an Ashby nolo plea based upon his perception of the dispositive nature [v]el non of the legal issue reserved for appeal. His decision will be overturned only upon a showing a clear abuse of discretion.

Id. at 385.

Later decisions have recognized that where the parties stipulate to the dispositive nature of an order denying suppression of a confession, an appeal after a no contest plea would not violate the principles enunciated in Brown. See, e.g., Weber v. State, 492 So.2d 1166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)

; Zeigler v. State, 471 So.2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Finney v. State, 420 So.2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

In this case, the prosecution clearly agreed that the motion in limine, regarding what amounted to a confession by Appellant, was dispositive of the case. Although this court is not bound by the state's stipulation,2 having so stipulated, the state should not be permitted to assert the contrary on appeal.

As to the merits of Debiasio's appeal, section 90.410, Florida Statutes, provides:...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Calabro v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • September 18, 2008
    ...plea discussions by the defendant. Calabro also asserts the Third District's decision conflicts with the holdings in Debiasio v. State, 789 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); McCray v. State, 760 So.2d 988 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); and Russell State, 614 So.2d 605 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). He notes that,......
  • Maxwell v. State, 5D04-4177.
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • January 6, 2006
    ...a confession is not dispositive for purposes of this rule unless the parties so stipulate.") (citations omitted); Debiasio v. State, 789 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Blanco v. State, 752 So.2d 79 (Fla.2d DCA 2000); Spiker v. State, 477 So.2d 1063 (Fla.2d DCA 1985); Freeman v. State, 450 ......
  • Coultas v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • April 4, 2007
  • Nunes v. State, 2D07-1625.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • June 11, 2008
    ...letter to State indicating that he would plead guilty in exchange for concessions was erroneously admitted); Debiasio v. State, 789 So.2d 1061, 1063 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (concluding that defendant's letter to state attorney, in which he offered to plead guilty, was inadmissible); Russell v. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT