Gainey v. State
| Decision Date | 03 September 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-1462,79-1462 |
| Citation | 386 So.2d 904 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Daniel Patrick GAINEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Lucie County; Royce R. Lewis, Judge.
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Martin Colin, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Russell S. Bohn, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Defendant appealed, contesting the denial of his motion to suppress certain physical evidence obtained at the time of his arrest. After denial of his motion to suppress, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere reserving his right to appeal the court's ruling on suppression. We have reviewed the entire record and the briefs of the parties and seriously question whether the ruling on the motion to suppress is dispositive of the case. Since an appeal by a defendant in an Ashby nolo plea situation is allowable only if the issue raised is dispositive, we relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court for a period of forty days with directions to determine whether the ruling on the motion to suppress was dispositive. Brown v. State, 376 So.2d 382 (Fla.1979); State v. Ashby, 245 So.2d 225 (Fla.1971). The trial court is requested to enter an order on this issue. Thereafter, it shall be appellant's responsibility to supplement the record by filing a certified copy of the court's order and advising this court in writing of the necessity of our resuming jurisdiction for the purpose of deciding the appeal. See Gray v. State, 379 So.2d 435 (FLa. 2d DCA 1980).
JURISDICTION RELINQUISHED FOR STATED PURPOSE.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leisure v. State
...has been prejudiced in now being able to prove its case. Pittman v. State, 382 So.2d 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); see also Gainey v. State, 386 So.2d 904 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), and Gray v. State, 379 So.2d 435 (Fla. 2d DCA Finally, we note that our holding in this case does not conflict with our ......
-
Gainey v. State, 79-1462
...of whether the ruling on appellant's motion to suppress the tangible evidence was dispositive of the case. Gainey v. State, 386 So.2d 904 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). The trial court entered an order on October 14, 1980, finding that the motion to suppress did not present a dispositive issue. The d......