ROBERT KJERSGAARD, 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 the denial of the motion to suppress was not dispositive, and the defendant may have the right to withdraw his plea. Sentencing challenges were found to lack merit.
Robert Kjersgaard pled nolo contendere to kidnapping and involuntary sexual battery, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppres…
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
SCHEB, Judge.
Robert Kjersgaard pled nolo contendere to charges of kidnapping and involuntary sexual battery reserving the right to appeal denial of his motion to suppress tangible evidence. He now challenges the denial of his motion as well as the sentences imposed.
On the record before us, we find that the trial court’s ruling on the motion to suppress tangible evidence was not disposi-tive of the case. Accordingly, on the authority of Brown v. State, 376 So. 2d 382 (Fla.1979), we do not consider the merits of that ruling. Since Kjersgaard entered his plea prior to Brown, however, we direct the trial-court to allow Kjersgaard thirty days from the date of our mandate to move to withdraw his plea. The court shall grant any such motion unless the state establishes that the withdrawal will prejudice its case against Kjersgaard. Pittman v. State, 382 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).
Kjersgaard also challenges his sentences. We find no merit in his contentions that he can be sentenced for only one crime and that the trial court erred in failing to certify him as a mentally disordered sex offender. Accordingly, we dismiss Kjersgaard’s appeal insofar as it challenges the denial of his motion to suppress, and affirm the sem tences imposed by the trial court, subject to Kjersgaard’s right to move to withdraw his plea.
GRIMES, C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 376 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 1979)
- 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)