Vaughn v. State, No. 96-4889

CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)
Writing for the CourtWEBSTER
Citation711 So.2d 64
Parties23 Fla. L. Weekly D892 Rose A. VAUGHN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Decision Date31 March 1998
Docket NumberNo. 96-4889

Page 64

711 So.2d 64
23 Fla. L. Weekly D892
Rose A. VAUGHN, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 96-4889.
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
First District.
March 31, 1998.
Rehearing Denied May 15, 1998.

Antony E. Fiorentino, Pensacola, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General; L. Michael Billmeier, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

WEBSTER, Judge.

Following the denial of her motion to suppress evidence acquired as the result of a wiretap, appellant pleaded no contest to a charge of unlawfully conducting a business enterprise through a pattern of racketeering, in violation of sections 895.03 and 895.04, Florida Statutes (1995). Appellant reserved the right to appeal the denial of her motion to suppress, which the trial court had found, notwithstanding the state's vigorous argument to the contrary, to be dispositive. Appellant now seeks review of the order denying her motion to suppress. The state responds that the trial court erred when it found that the motion to suppress presented a dispositive issue and that, because it clearly did not, the appeal must be dismissed. We agree that the motion did not involve a dispositive issue. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

Page 65

The state claimed that appellant was operating an escort service which was, in reality, a prostitution ring. The authorities first learned of appellant's activities when they were told by a motel manager that a particular room at the motel had been receiving numerous telephone calls, and that there had been complaints that prostitution was taking place at the motel. An investigator telephoned the room in question without identifying himself, and arranged for an escort to meet him. When the escort arrived at the designated location, the investigator confirmed that she was there to perform sexual acts, at which time he arrested her. When interviewed, the escort provided extensive information regarding the prostitution ring, and identified appellant as the owner. The escort subsequently agreed to cooperate fully with the authorities, and provided additional information about the ring on several occasions. It was principally upon the basis of the information provided by the escort that the wiretap was authorized.

After the trial court had denied the motion to suppress, appellant stated that she wished to withdraw her previously entered not-guilty plea, and to enter a plea of no contest to the charge, reserving the right to appeal the denial of the motion, which she argued was dispositive. The state argued that the motion to suppress was not dispositive because it could establish its case against appellant without the evidence acquired as a result of the wiretap. Although it acknowledged that the evidence (which consisted principally of the statements given by the escort) other than that obtained as a result of the wiretap "might have been sufficient had th[e] matter gone to trial to withstand a motion for judgment of acquittal," the trial court did not believe that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 practice notes
  • Phuagnong v. State, No. 96-4705
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • June 15, 1998
    ...case in which the trial court found an order dispositive "notwithstanding the state's vigorous argument to the contrary." Vaughn v. State, 711 So.2d 64, 64 (1998). We have The appellate court's role is a limited one. On review of the trial court's order on the suppression motion, "legal que......
  • Diaz v. State Of Fla., No. 4D09-543.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • May 19, 2010
    ...of the outcome of the appeal, there will be no trial.” Fuller v. State, 748 So.2d 292, 294 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (citing Vaughn v. State, 711 So.2d 64, 65 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 722 So.2d 195 (Fla.1998)). It is the trial court's duty “to determine the dispositive nature of the reserved ......
  • Goings v. State , No. 1D10–5229.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • November 22, 2011
    ...may be imposed.”). 3. See Brown v. State, 376 So.2d 382, 384 (Fla.1979); State v. Ashby, 245 So.2d 225, 228 (Fla.1971); Vaughn v. State, 711 So.2d 64, 65 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Wright v. State, 547 So.2d 258, 259 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Howard v. State, 515 So.2d 346, 348 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Mo......
  • Beltran v. Kalb, No. 3D08–2688.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • April 28, 2011
    ...applied “the correct legal rule is de novo, because application of an incorrect rule is erroneous as a matter of law.” Vaughn v. State, 711 So.2d 64, 66 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).1. Carmen's interest in the property Prior to 1985, the homestead protection from forced sale benefitted only owners w......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
19 cases
  • Phuagnong v. State, No. 96-4705
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • June 15, 1998
    ...case in which the trial court found an order dispositive "notwithstanding the state's vigorous argument to the contrary." Vaughn v. State, 711 So.2d 64, 64 (1998). We have The appellate court's role is a limited one. On review of the trial court's order on the suppression motion, "legal que......
  • Diaz v. State Of Fla., No. 4D09-543.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • May 19, 2010
    ...of the outcome of the appeal, there will be no trial.” Fuller v. State, 748 So.2d 292, 294 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (citing Vaughn v. State, 711 So.2d 64, 65 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 722 So.2d 195 (Fla.1998)). It is the trial court's duty “to determine the dispositive nature of the reserved ......
  • Goings v. State , No. 1D10–5229.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • November 22, 2011
    ...may be imposed.”). 3. See Brown v. State, 376 So.2d 382, 384 (Fla.1979); State v. Ashby, 245 So.2d 225, 228 (Fla.1971); Vaughn v. State, 711 So.2d 64, 65 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Wright v. State, 547 So.2d 258, 259 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Howard v. State, 515 So.2d 346, 348 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Mo......
  • Beltran v. Kalb, No. 3D08–2688.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • April 28, 2011
    ...applied “the correct legal rule is de novo, because application of an incorrect rule is erroneous as a matter of law.” Vaughn v. State, 711 So.2d 64, 66 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).1. Carmen's interest in the property Prior to 1985, the homestead protection from forced sale benefitted only owners w......
  • 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