Seabrook v. State, 92-413

Decision Date15 June 1993
Docket NumberNo. 92-413,92-413
Citation620 So.2d 227
Parties18 Fla. L. Week. D1447 Andre SEABROOK, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida 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

PER CURIAM.

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
2 cases
  • Werner v. State, 3D02-965.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • October 23, 2002
    ...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
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • June 16, 1993

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