DONALD EVERETT MANGUM, 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.
A nolo contendere plea reserving a nondispositive issue for appeal is not permissible under Brown v. State.
Appellant pleaded nolo contendere, reserving the right to appeal a nondispositive issue, prior to the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Sta…
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 Issue cases and more on FLexlaw
HOBSON, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant Donald Everett Mangum appeals an order withholding adjudication on a charge of first degree arson and placing him on three years probation after a plea of nolo contendere. Appellant argues that pri-or to the Florida Supreme Court’s opinion in Brown v. State, 376 So. 2d 382 (Fla.1979), the trial judge accepted his nolo contendere plea which included the reservation of the right to appeal a nondispositive issue. Appellant requests that this cause be remanded to the trial court in order to give appellant an opportunity to withdraw his plea in light of the inability of the judicial system to provide him with the right to appeal his reserved issue.
Under Brown v. State, only legally dis-positive issues may be reserved for appeal following a nolo contendere plea. We find that appellant did not reserve a legally dis-positive issue and, therefore, is not entitled to an appeal.
Since appellant’s plea was entered before the Brown decision, this case is remanded to the trial court with instructions that appellant be afforded an opportunity to seek to withdraw his plea. See Pittman v. State, 382 So. 2d 1227, No. 79-642 (Fla.2d DCA, Oct. 17, 1979), on rehearing (Fla.2d DCA Jan. 30, 1980), rehearing denied (Fla.2d DCA May 8, 1980).
OTT and RYDER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hudson v. State, 745 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…y were brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(b). There are at least a few instances in which a motion to dismiss can be filed under rule 3.190(b). See, e.g., State v. Smith, 575 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); State v. Harden, 384 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). In this case, however, it appears Mr. Hudson’s arguments boil down to a claim that the facts upon which the State rely do not establish a prima facie case of guilt. Thus, his motions should have been brought pursuant to Florida R…
-
Woodruff v. State, 384 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)…r to the Florida Supreme Court’s opinion in Brown v. State, 376 So. 2d 382 (Fla.1979); therefore, this case is remanded to the trial court with instructions that appellant be afforded an opportunity to seek to withdraw his plea. See Mangum v. State, 384 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Pittman v. State, 382 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), on rehearing (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), rehearing denied (Fla. 2d DCA May 8, 1980). HOBSON, Acting C. J., and OTT, J., concur.…
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)