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.
The appellate court dismissed the appeal because the issues raised were not dispositive of the case after a nolo contendere plea.
Appellant pled nolo contendere to robbery, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motions to suppress tangible evidence and his confession. T…
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 Reservation Of Right To Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
On this appeal Thomas C. Gray, having pled nolo contendere to the crime of robbery reserving his right to appeal, challenges 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). 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, supra, this appeal is dismissed. However, the trial court must allow appellant thirty days from the date of issuance of our mandate within which to withdraw his plea, Brown v. State, supra, and shall grant any such motion unless the state is able to establish prejudice as a result of the delay caused by this appeal. See Pittman v. State, 382 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).
GRIMES, C. J., BOARDMAN and RYDER, JJ., concur. . As a matter of law, the ruling on appellant’s motion to suppress his confession may not be considered dispositive of the case for the purpose of this appeal, as we stated in our prior opinion. Gray v. State, 379 So. 2d 435 (Fla.2d DCA, Feb. 1, 1980); Brown v. State, 376 So. 2d 382 (Fla.1979).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Logan Finney v. State, 420 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…ions whether an issue is legally dispositive, relinquishes jurisdiction to the trial court for a hearing on that issue, finds the issue not disposi-tive, dismisses the appeal, and permits the defendant to withdraw his plea. See, e.g., Gray v. State, 381 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). Moreover, encouraging and accepting agreements between the State and the defendant will have the salutary effect of avoiding potential collateral attacks on nolo contendere pleas entered in the erroneous belief, gained from couns…1 / 2
-
Gainey v. State, 396 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…k withdrawal of his plea in accordance with Brown v. State, supra. The trial court shall grant appellant’s motion to withdraw the plea unless the State is able to establish prejudice as a result of the delay caused by this appeal. See Gray v. State, 381 So. 2d 302 (Fla.2d DCA 1980), and Pittman v. State, 382 So. 2d 1227 (Fla.2d DCA 1980). LETTS, C. J., and GLICKSTEIN, J., concur.…
-
German A. Gomez and Florentino Molina v. State, 437 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…that, therefore, it was without jurisdiction over the appeal. See, e.g., Carr v. State, 421 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Coleman v. State, 417 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Kjersgaard v. State, 383 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Gray v. State, 381 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Arnold v. State, 379 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). Instead, as should be obvious, implicit in our earlier affirmance of the trial court’s denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss on the ground that the motion was unsworn is…
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
- Brown v. State, 376 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 1979)
- First Amendment Found. OF Fla., Inc. v. State, 364 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 1978)
- G & B OF Jacksonville, Inc. v. State, 382 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Pittman v. State, 382 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Fla. Coll. & Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Arlin Wilsher & Mich. Mut. Ins. Co., 379 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Gray v. State, 379 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)