S.T.N. v. State, No. 84-667

• Court: Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM
• Citation: 474 So.2d 884,10 Fla. L. Weekly 2035
• Decision Date: 28 August 1985
• Docket Number: No. 84-667
• Parties: 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2035 In the Interest of S.T.N., a child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Page 884

474 So.2d 884 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2035 In the Interest of S.T.N., a child, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee. No. 84-667. District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Fourth District. Aug. 28, 1985.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Tatjana Ostapoff, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Penny H. Brill, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, having pled nolo contendere, now attempts to appeal three issues: (1) whether the trial court properly denied his motion to dismiss; (2) whether the trial court properly required him to pay restitution for an unrelated crime; and (3) whether the trial court properly denied his motion to suppress. We conclude that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss. It did err, however, in requiring the defendant to pay restitution for an unrelated case. As for the suppression question, we find that we must relinquish jurisdiction so that the trial court may determine whether the legal issue is dispositive of the case.

Defendant, a juvenile, pled nolo contendere to a charge of grand theft in case 84-03-CJ (theft of a convenience store), and the state nolle prossed a charge of grand theft in case 84-10-CJ (theft at Peggy Stone's house) as part of a plea bargain. Defendant expressly reserved the right to appeal the denial of the motions to dismiss and suppress. Thereafter, the court committed the defendant to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, and ordered him to pay restitution for the crime to which he had pled nolo contendere

Page 885

($102.75) and the unrelated crime that had been nolle prossed ($1200.00).

We first treat the "appealability" of the order denying the defendant's motion to suppress post-arrest statements and physical evidence. In State v. Ashby, 245 So.2d 225 (Fla.1971), the court approved the practice of pleading nolo contendere conditioned on the right to seek appellate review of a legal, as opposed to a factual, issue. Brown v. State, 376 So.2d 382 (Fla.1979), added a further refinement and held that the legal issue had to be dispositive of the case. Also, the court held that "as a matter of law a confession may not be considered dispositive of the case for purposes of an Ashby nolo plea." Id. at 385. Later cases, however, have qualified this point by holding that a confession may be dispositive of a case if so stipulated by the parties and approved by the trial court. See Oesterle v. State, 382 So.2d 1293 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Jackson v. State, 382 So.2d 749 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), aff'd, 392 So.2d 1324 (Fla.1981).

The record in the case at bar is, to say the least, ambiguous on whether the legal question raised by the motion to suppress is dispositive of the case. When the defendant first announced his intention to enter a plea of no contest, his attorney said that the defendant was reserving the right to appeal. The trial court responded, "Well, alright but I'm --." Then the prosecutor interrupted and said, "I don't care about that." The court said, "Great. You know, I'm only one fella. I could be wrong so no -- I don't worry about -- but as far as disposing of this case at the trial level, I'll accept your, ... your word that, ... you have -- we have the plea."

The plea was entered several days later. At that time, defense counsel indicated that the defendant was "specifically reserving the right to appeal the Court's denial of the motion to suppress and the motion to...