TOMAS BASTEN, A/K/A SANDY LEE, 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 court held that a defendant may seek to withdraw a nolo contendere plea to appeal a denied motion to suppress a confession, even after a new precedent stated such appeals are not preserved.
Tomas Basten pleaded nolo contendere to murder and robbery, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress his confession. A subse…
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 Dispositive Ruling cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Judge.
Tomas Basten was indicted by the grand jury for first degree murder and robbery. Basten pleaded nolo contendere reserving the right to appeal the denial of his pretrial motion to suppress his confession. Pursuant to agreement, the trial court accepted his plea and adjudicated Basten guilty of both charges and sentenced him to concurrent terms of life imprisonment.
Basten recognizes that the Florida Supreme Court in Brown v. State, 376 So. 2d 382 (Fla.1979) (filed after Basten entered his plea), held that a confession is not dis-positive as a matter of law and, therefore, that the denial of a motion to suppress a confession cannot be preserved for appeal based on a plea of nolo contendere.
Basten contends, however, that the court should allow him to seek to withdraw his nolo plea as the appellant in Brown was allowed to do. We agree.
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal and direct the trial court to allow Basten thirty days from the date of our mandate to file a motion to withdraw his plea and set aside the judgments and sentences under the procedure outlined in Pittman v. State, 382 So. 2d 1227 (Fla.2d DCA 1980), and Arnold v. State, 379 So. 2d 1003 (Fla.2d DCA 1980).
SCHEB, Acting C. J., and OTT, J., concur. . This court in Oesterle v. State, No. 79-1878, 382 So. 2d 1293 (Fla.2d DCA April 18, 1980), held that Brown, supra, should not be interpreted to mean that the parties cannot, with the court’s approval, stipulate that the suppression of a confession is dispositive. The denial of a motion to suppress a confession will, in such an instance, be appealable after a plea of nolo contendere. The first district court of appeal reached the same conclusion in Jackson v. State, 382 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Oleanga Gibson v. State, 386 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…rt in Brown, however, we direct that, after remand, the defendant [*589] shall be permitted to withdraw his plea and to plead anew, provided that the state does not establish that it has been prejudiced by the subsequent delay. See, Basten v. State, 382 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Pittman v.State, 382 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); McCowen v. State, 381 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Appeal dismissed.…
-
Sune v. State, 402 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…tate 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).…
Authorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 376 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 1979)
- Nat'l Brands, Inc. v. Willis, 382 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Oesterle v. State, 382 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- 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)
- Arnold v. State, 379 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)