Sune v. State, 80-1734
| Decision Date | 16 June 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-1734,80-1734 |
| Citation | 402 So.2d 11 |
| Parties | George SUNE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Kurt Marmar, Henry Gonzalez, Goodhart & Rosner, Miami, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before HUBBART, C.J., and BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.
George Sune appeals from conviction and sentencing after he pled nolo contendere to counts of bribery, unlawful compensation and conspiracy. Sune expressly reserved the right to appeal from the court's denial of his motion to suppress recordings of certain conversations Sun had with a Mario Vega, upon a finding by the trial judge that this motion was dispositive of the case. In exercise of that right, Sune now asks this court to determine whether the tape recordings which were obtained as a result of electronic interception by means of a recording device placed on Sune's home phone without a warrant or the existence of exigent circumstances, should be suppressed as violative of Article I, Section 12 of the 1968 Florida Constitution.
After reviewing the record, we find ourselves unable to address the merits of Sune's appeal because the issue is not dispositive on appeal. Brown v. State, 376 So.2d 382 (Fla.1979); Corraliza v. State, 391 So.2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Where the same information that is available on the recordings which Sune seeks to suppress, could be obtained from the testimony of Vega, the other participant in the recorded conversations, the trial judge clearly abused his discretion in finding the issue raised by the motion to suppress dispositive on appeal. See, e. g., Campbell v. State, 386 So.2d 629 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). See also Brown, supra at 385.
Nor is there any record evidence of a stipulation between counsel for Sune and the State that the ruling on the admissibility of the recordings is dispositive of the appeal which would permit us to reach the merits. Jackson v. State, 382 So.2d 749 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), affirmed, 392 So.2d 1324 (Fla.1981). See also Basten v. State, 382 So.2d 1362, 1363, n.1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).
Appeal dismissed. See Hardison v. State, 385 So.2d 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Finney v. State
...388 So.2d 1353, 1354, n. 2 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Oesterle v. State, 382 So.2d 1293 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). This court, in Sune v. State, 402 So.2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), recognized that if there had been evidence of a stipulation between counsel, it would be appropriate to reach the merits. This......
-
Weber v. State, 85-2271
...5th DCA 1984); Banks v. State, 467 So.2d 386 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Finney v. State, 420 So.2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Sune v. State, 402 So.2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Hardison v. State, 385 So.2d 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Arnold v. State, 379 So.2d 1003 (Fla. 2d DCA The only case unearthed by t......
-
Vaughn v. State, 96-4889
...ruling on appellant's motion to suppress evidence acquired as a result of the wiretap was not dispositive. See, e.g., Sune v. State, 402 So.2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (motion to suppress recordings of conversations not dispositive because evidence to same effect was available through witness ......
-
Wright v. State, 88-1129
...plea and appeal came sometime after Brown was decided. See also Alexander v. State, 399 So.2d 110 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Sune v. State, 402 So.2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Hardison v. State, 385 So.2d 738 (Fla. 2d DCA Our decision in Morgan v. State, 486 So.2d 1356 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) is disting......