THOMAS C. GRAY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Thomas Gray appealed his robbery conviction entered by nolo contendere plea, challenging the denial of motions to suppress evidence and his confession. The court held that a confession cannot be dispositive under an Ashby nolo plea, but remanded to the trial court to determine whether the tangible evidence suppression ruling was dispositive of the case.
Gray cannot appeal the denial of the motion to suppress his confession because a confession cannot be considered dispositive for purposes of an Ashby nolo plea. The court remanded to the trial court to determine whether the tangible evidence suppression ruling was dispositive.
[1] Appellate review of issues arising from a nolo contendere plea is permissible only if the issues raised are dispositive of the case.
[2] A confession cannot be considered dispositive of a case for the purpose of an Ashby nolo plea.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Appellate review of issues arising out of a plea of nolo contendere is allowable only if the issues raised are dispositive of the case.”
Establishes the governing standard for appellate review in nolo contendere cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThomas Gray pleaded nolo contendere to robbery with reservation of his right to appeal the denial of his motions to suppress tangible evidence and his…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion To Suppress Tangible Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Thomas Gray appeals his judgment and sentence for robbery, having pled nolo con-tendere with reservation of his right to appeal the denial of his motions to suppress certain tangible evidence and his confession.
Appellate review of issues arising out of a plea of nolo contendere is allowable only if the issues raised are dispositive of the case. Brown v. State, 376 So. 2d 382 (Fla.1979), First Amendment Foundation of Florida, Inc. v. State, 364 So. 2d 450 (Fla.1978). As a matter of law, a confession may not be considered dispositive of the case for purposes of an Ashby
nolo plea. Brown v. State, supra. Thus appellant is not entitled to review of the denial of his motion to suppress his confession on this appeal.
On the record before us we seriously question whether the ruling on appellant’s remaining motion to suppress tangible evidence is dispositive of this case. However, in an effort to be fair to both appellant and appellee, we have determined to leave the question up to the trial court. Pittman v. State, No. 79-642 (Fla.2d DCA Jan. 30, 1980).
Accordingly, we relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court for a period of thirty days with directions to hold a hearing to determine whether the ruling on the motion to suppress was dispositive of the case and advise this court of its conclusion. If the court concludes that the ruling was disposi-tive, the record should be supplemented to reflect this, and we will resume jurisdiction of this appeal.
If the trial court determines the motion not to have been dispositive of the case, this court shall be notified, and we will dismiss this appeal. However, in that event, the trial court shall allow appellant thirty days from the date of our mandate within which to file a motion to withdraw his plea. The court shall grant any such motion unless the state is able to establish prejudice as a result of the delay engendered by this appeal. See Pittman v. State, supra. Should appellant not be allowed to withdraw his plea, he may seek review of the order denying withdrawal by filing a new appeal in this court.
GRIMES, C. J., and BOARDMAN and RYDER, JJ., concur. . State v. Ashby, 245 So. 2d 225 (Fla.1971).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Leisure v. State, 429 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…eason of events occurring since the entry of the plea, it has been prejudiced in now being able to prove its case. Pittman v. State, 382 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); see also Gainey v. State, 386 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), and Gray v. State, 379 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). Finally, we note that our holding in this case does not conflict with our previous decisions in Alexander v. State, 399 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), Puccio v. State, 424 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (on petition for rehearin…
-
Gray v. State, 381 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)…. State, 364 So. 2d 450 (Fla.1978). We temporarily relinquished jurisdiction of the case to the trial court for a determination of whether the ruling on appellant’s motion to suppress the tangible evidence was dispositive of the case. Gray v. State, 379 So. 2d 435 (Fla.2d DCA 1980).1 This court has now been duly notified of the trial court’s determination that its ruling on the motion to suppress tangible evidence standing alone is not disposi-tive of the case. Accordingly, on the authority of Brown v. State…1 / 2
-
Carr v. State, 421 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…PER CURIAM. The trial court having concluded that its order on motion to compel was not disposi-tive of the case, the appeal is dismissed. Pursuant to the procedure suggested in Gray v. State, 379 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), the trial court shall allow appellant thirty days from the date of this order within which to file a motion to withdraw her plea. The trial court shall grant such motion unless the state is able to establish prejudice as a result…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Ashby, 245 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1971)
- Brown v. State, 376 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 1979)
- First Amendment Found. OF Fla., Inc. v. State, 364 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 1978)