Griffin v. State, No. 1D99-574.

CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)
Writing for the CourtBENTON, J.
Citation753 So.2d 676
PartiesSammie O'Neal GRIFFIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Docket NumberNo. 1D99-574.
Decision Date13 March 2000

753 So.2d 676

Sammie O'Neal GRIFFIN, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee

No. 1D99-574.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 13, 2000.


753 So.2d 677
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender; Fred Parker Bingham II, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General; James W. Rogers, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

BENTON, J.

On this direct appeal of an order placing the appellant on probation with six months in jail as a special condition, we first address the state's contention that we lack jurisdiction to consider the propriety of an antecedent order denying a motion to dismiss. We conclude we do have jurisdiction, that the motion to dismiss was properly denied, and that the probation order should be affirmed.

Sammie O'Neal Griffin moved to dismiss the information charging him with a violation of section 794.05(1), Florida Statutes (1997). Twenty-four years old at the time, he was alleged to have had a sexual encounter with a sixteen-year-old girl. He argued for dismissal on grounds the statute unconstitutionally interferes with privacy rights, violates equal protection guarantees, and offends due process.

After the trial court denied the motion to dismiss, he entered into a plea agreement which reflected his intention to appeal the trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss. The trial court noted that Mr. Griffin was reserving the right to appeal the trial court's ruling on the motion to dismiss, but it did not explicitly rule that the motion was dispositive. The state did not stipulate that the denial of the motion to dismiss was dispositive of the case. The state now contends that consideration of the issue is foreclosed. We reject the state's contention.

Pleading to a criminal charge while reserving the right to seek appellate review of a crucial ruling avoids an unnecessary trial. State v. Ashby, 245 So.2d 225 (Fla.1971). If the ruling is affirmed, the conviction—or, as here, the probation order —is also affirmed. But an "Ashby nolo plea is permissible only when the legal issue to be determined on appeal is dispositive of the case." Brown v. State, 376 So.2d 382, 384 (Fla.1979). A ruling is "dispositive" in this context if, at the time of the plea, it is clear that the state cannot or will not proceed with prosecution of the case on remand in the event the ruling is reversed.

When the parties stipulate in the trial court that an...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • Green v. State, No. 1D01-5024.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • August 28, 2002
    ...In entering his plea of nolo contendere, Mr. Green reserved the right to appeal denial of the suppression motion. See Griffin v. State, 753 So.2d 676, 677 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) ("Pleading to a criminal charge while reserving the right to seek appellate review of a crucial ruling avoids an unn......
  • Morris v. State, No. 1D99-4286.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • May 29, 2001
    ...the issue. See Brown v. State, 376 So.2d 382, 384 (Fla.1979); Lester v. State, 754 So.2d 746, 747 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Griffin v. State, 753 So.2d 676, 677-78 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). "Where the parties stipulate that an issue is dispositive, we will not `"go behind" the stipulation of the part......
  • Robinson v. State, No. 1D03-4701.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • October 28, 2004
    ...that the state cannot or will not proceed with prosecution of the case on remand in the event the ruling is reversed." Griffin v. State, 753 So.2d 676, 677 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). "When the parties stipulate in the trial court that an issue is determinative in this sense, the state is foreclos......
  • Robinson v. State, Case No. 1D03-4701 (FL 8/18/2004), Case No. 1D03-4701.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • August 18, 2004
    ...that the state cannot or will not proceed with prosecution of the case on remand in the event the ruling is reversed.' Griffin v. State, 753 So. 2d 676, 677 (Fla. 2000). `When the parties stipulate in the trial court that an issue is determinative in this sense, the state is foreclosed from......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • Green v. State, No. 1D01-5024.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • August 28, 2002
    ...In entering his plea of nolo contendere, Mr. Green reserved the right to appeal denial of the suppression motion. See Griffin v. State, 753 So.2d 676, 677 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) ("Pleading to a criminal charge while reserving the right to seek appellate review of a crucial ruling avoids an unn......
  • Morris v. State, No. 1D99-4286.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • May 29, 2001
    ...the issue. See Brown v. State, 376 So.2d 382, 384 (Fla.1979); Lester v. State, 754 So.2d 746, 747 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Griffin v. State, 753 So.2d 676, 677-78 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). "Where the parties stipulate that an issue is dispositive, we will not `"go behind" the stipulation of the part......
  • Robinson v. State, No. 1D03-4701.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • October 28, 2004
    ...that the state cannot or will not proceed with prosecution of the case on remand in the event the ruling is reversed." Griffin v. State, 753 So.2d 676, 677 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). "When the parties stipulate in the trial court that an issue is determinative in this sense, the state is foreclos......
  • Robinson v. State, Case No. 1D03-4701 (FL 8/18/2004), Case No. 1D03-4701.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • August 18, 2004
    ...that the state cannot or will not proceed with prosecution of the case on remand in the event the ruling is reversed.' Griffin v. State, 753 So. 2d 676, 677 (Fla. 2000). `When the parties stipulate in the trial court that an issue is determinative in this sense, the state is foreclosed from......
  • 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