Gray v. State, 79-712
| Decision Date | 12 March 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-712,79-712 |
| Citation | 381 So.2d 302 |
| Parties | Thomas C. GRAY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
David A. Demers, of Demers & Demers, St. Petersburg, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and James S. Purdy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
On this appeal Thomas C. Gray, having pled nolo contendere to the crime of robbery reserving his right to appeal, challenges the denial of his motions to suppress certain tangible evidence and his confession.
Appellate review of issues arising out of a plea of nolo contendere is allowable only if the issues raised are dispositive of the case, Brown v. State, 376 So.2d 382 (Fla.1979); First Amendment Foundation of Florida, Inc. v. State, 364 So.2d 450 (Fla.1978). We temporarily relinquished jurisdiction of the case to the trial court for a determination of whether the ruling on appellant's motion to suppress the tangible evidence was dispositive of the case. Gray v. State, 379 So.2d 435 (Fla.2d DCA 1980). 1
This court has now been duly notified of the trial court's determination that its ruling on the motion to suppress tangible evidence standing alone is not dispositive of the case. Accordingly, on the authority of Brown v. State, supra, this appeal is dismissed. However, the trial court must allow appellant thirty days from the date of issuance of our mandate within which to withdraw his plea, Brown v. State, supra, and shall grant any such motion unless the state is able to establish prejudice as a result of the delay caused by this appeal. See Pittman v. State, 382 So.2d 1227, (Fla.2d DCA, 1980).
1 As a matter of law, the ruling on appellant's motion to suppress his confession may not be considered dispositive of the case for the purpose of this appeal, as we stated in our prior opinion. Gray v. State, 379 So.2d 435 (Fla.2d DCA, Feb. 1, 1980); Brown v. State, 376 So.2d 382 (Fla.1979).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Finney v. State
...Accord, Kjersgaard v. State, 383 So.2d 763 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Pittman v. State, 382 So.2d 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Gray v. State, 381 So.2d 302 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Arnold v. State, 379 So.2d 1003 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). A defendant's understanding that he could appeal, incorrect because of cle......
-
Blanco v. State, 2D98-4815.
...reserved. See § 924.06(3), Fla. Stat. (1997); Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A); Brown v. State, 376 So.2d 382 (Fla.1979); Gray v. State, 381 So.2d 302 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). Blanco's plea agreement reserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress his confession, but it also expre......
-
Gomez v. State, 82-1584
...DCA 1982); Coleman v. State, 417 So.2d 690 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Kjersgaard v. State, 383 So.2d 763 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Gray v. State, 381 So.2d 302 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Arnold v. State, 379 So.2d 1003 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). Instead, as should be obvious, implicit in our earlier affirmance of th......
-
Gainey v. State, 79-1462
...to withdraw the plea unless the State is able to establish prejudice as a result of the delay caused by this appeal. See Gray v. State, 381 So.2d 302 (Fla.2d DCA 1980), and Pittman v. State, 382 So.2d 1227 (Fla.2d DCA LETTS, C. J., and GLICKSTEIN, J., concur. ...