Everett v. State, Nos. 86-2692
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
| Writing for the Court | FRANK; RYDER, A.C.J., and LEHAN |
| Citation | 535 So.2d 667,14 Fla. L. Weekly 59 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 59 Morris E. EVERETT, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 21 December 1988 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 86-2692,86-2693 |
Page 667
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Second District.
Page 668
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Stephen Krosschell, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert J. Landry, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
FRANK, Judge.
In Case No. 86-2692 Everett pleaded nolo contendere to the crime of first degree murder, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress a confession to the charged crime.
Our first concern is jurisdictional. In State v. Ashby, 245 So.2d 225 (Fla.1971), our supreme court sanctioned the practice of allowing defendants to plead nolo contendere with reservation of the right to seek review of a question of law. Subsequently, in Brown v. State, 376 So.2d 382 (Fla.1979), the supreme court engrafted upon the Ashby doctrine the requirement that the reserved legal issue must control final disposition of the case. In commenting upon those matters which might be determinative in implementing the Ashby principle, the supreme court expressly isolated the confession as a ground that could not, as a matter of law, provide the element essential to ultimate resolution of the proceeding. Id. at p. 385. However harsh Everett may perceive the effect of Brown to be, Brown is well embedded in Florida's jurisprudence--"We ... reiterate our holding in Brown: an issue is preserved for appeal on a nolo plea only if it is dispositive of the case." State v. Carr, 438 So.2d 826 (Fla.1983). Thus, 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 record of the plea hearing is "murky" and suggests that the trial court's comments gave tacit approval to the appealability of the reserved questions. Spiker v. State, 477 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (confession reviewed notwithstanding an unclear record as to the appealability
Page 669
of the order denying the motion to suppress); see also Jackson v. State, 382 So.2d 749 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), affirmed, 392 So.2d 1324 (Fla.1981) (Brown does not foreclose a stipulation that question associated with confession can be dispositive); but...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Diaz v. State Of Fla., No. 4D09-543.
...722 So.2d 195 (Fla.1998)). It is the trial court's duty “to determine the dispositive nature of the reserved question.” Everett v. State, 535 So.2d 667, 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). The court errs if it “merely acknowledges that the defendant has reserved an issue for appellate review.” Id. Howe......
-
England v. State Of Fla., Case No. 2D09-2778
...of orders denying motions to suppress and we have proceeded to discuss the merits of the cases. See, e.g., Everett v. State, 535 So. 2d 667, 668-69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Spiker v. State, 477 So. 2d 1063, 1065 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).2 Turning to the merits, it is clear that the trial court erred b......
-
Holden v. State , No. 1D11–1828.
...9.140(b)(2)(A)(i). A trial court is obligated to determine the dispositive nature of an issue reserved for appeal. See Everett v. State, 535 So.2d 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Here, the State did not stipulate, and the trial judge erroneously declined to determine that these issues are dispositi......
-
Moore v. State, No. 93-03629
...400 So.2d 1216 (Fla.1980). We remind the trial court of its duty to announce whether reserved issues are dispositive. Everett v. State, 535 So.2d 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). The trial court failed in this instance to make such a finding and the parties did not stipulate that the issue was dispo......
-
Diaz v. State Of Fla., No. 4D09-543.
...722 So.2d 195 (Fla.1998)). It is the trial court's duty “to determine the dispositive nature of the reserved question.” Everett v. State, 535 So.2d 667, 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). The court errs if it “merely acknowledges that the defendant has reserved an issue for appellate review.” Id. Howe......
-
England v. State Of Fla., Case No. 2D09-2778
...of orders denying motions to suppress and we have proceeded to discuss the merits of the cases. See, e.g., Everett v. State, 535 So. 2d 667, 668-69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Spiker v. State, 477 So. 2d 1063, 1065 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).2 Turning to the merits, it is clear that the trial court erred b......
-
Holden v. State , No. 1D11–1828.
...9.140(b)(2)(A)(i). A trial court is obligated to determine the dispositive nature of an issue reserved for appeal. See Everett v. State, 535 So.2d 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Here, the State did not stipulate, and the trial judge erroneously declined to determine that these issues are dispositi......
-
Moore v. State, No. 93-03629
...400 So.2d 1216 (Fla.1980). We remind the trial court of its duty to announce whether reserved issues are dispositive. Everett v. State, 535 So.2d 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). The trial court failed in this instance to make such a finding and the parties did not stipulate that the issue was dispo......