Seabrook v. State, 92-413
Decision Date | 15 June 1993 |
Docket Number | No. 92-413,92-413 |
Citation | 620 So.2d 227 |
Parties | 18 Fla. L. Week. D1447 Andre SEABROOK, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Marti Rothenberg, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Fleur J. Lobree, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and JORGENSON and GODERICH, JJ.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
On consideration of the State's motion for rehearing, we grant the motion, withdraw our opinion filed February 23, 1993, and substitute the following opinion in lieu thereof.
The trial court failed to make an express finding that the reserved issue was dispositive. Moreover, the parties did not stipulate that the issue was dispositive. In fact, the State argued below that it would be able to go forward without the confidential informant's testimony. Therefore, the issue was not preserved for appellate review. See Sharpe v. State, 589 So.2d 964 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Everett v. State, 535 So.2d 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); D.K.G. v. State, 460 So.2d 549 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Werner v. State, 3D02-965.
...as both sides stipulated, the defendant does not have a right to appeal because the issue is not dispositive. See Seabrook v. State, 620 So.2d 227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). The appeal is dismissed without prejudice to the defendant's right to withdraw the plea and for relief under Florida Rule of......
- General Agents Ins. Co. of America v. Boehm