JAMES D. HARDISON, 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.
Appellant's appeal from nolo contendere conviction for manslaughter is dismissed because he failed to reserve a legally dispositive issue as required by Brown v. State, and post-Brown pleas do not warrant withdrawal opportunities.
A defendant who enters a nolo contendere plea after Brown v. State is not entitled to appeal unless the reserved issue is legally dispositive, and such pleas do not warrant withdrawal opportunities.
[1] Following Brown v. …
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames D. Hardison entered a nolo contendere plea to manslaughter and appealed, contending the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress stat…
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 Withdrawal Of Guilty Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
HOBSON, Judge.
James D. Hardison appeals from the judgment entered upon his nolo contendere plea to manslaughter. The appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress certain statements and the results of a blood alcohol test.
We are unable to determine the appellant’s appeal on the merits. Under Brown v. State, 376 So. 2d 382 (Fla.1979), only legally dispositive issues may be reserved for appeal following a nolo contendere plea. We find that the appellant did not reserve a legally dispositive issue, and therefore is not entitled to an appeal. The appellant’s plea was entered after the Brown decision. While we have remanded cases involving pre-Brown pleas with instructions that the appellant be afforded an opportunity to seek to withdraw his plea, see Pittman v. State, 382 So. 2d 1227 (Fla.2d DCA 1980), denying rehearing, such an order is not appropriate to post-Brown pleas. The opportunity to withdraw was predicated in pr e-Brown pleas upon the notion that it would be unfair to punish a defendant for his reliance on pre-Brown cases. However, after the rendition of the Brown decision a defendant can no longer justifiably claim that he was not aware that an issue reserved for appeal following a plea of nolo contendere must be dispositive.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the appellant need not be afforded an opportunity to withdraw his plea.
SCHEB, C. J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Logan Finney v. State, 420 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…salutary effect of avoiding potential collateral attacks on nolo contendere pleas entered in the erroneous belief, gained from counsel or the trial judge, that a preserved issue is legally dispositive and an appeal is viable. See Hardison v. State, 385 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (dismissing appeal without affording appellant right to withdraw his plea entered after Brown); Campbell v. State, 386 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (affirming without addressing nondispositive suppression issue); Webb v. State,…
-
State v. Carr, 438 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 1983)…So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), on the ground that it conflicts with Puccio v. State, 424 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Sune v. State, 402 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Alexander v. State, 399 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); and Hardison v. State, 385 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). We agree there is conflict and find jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. Respondent Carr was charged in a two-count information with robbery and attempted first-degree murder. The victim was an eighty-three-year-old wido…1 / 2
-
Everett v. State, 535 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…... reiterate our holding in Brown: an issue is preserved for appeal on a nolo plea only if it is dispositive of the case.” State v. Carr, 438 So. 2d 826 (Fla.1983). Thus, in the light of Brown and consistent with our decisions in Hardison v. State, 385 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), and Arnold v. State, 379 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), we would be warranted in dismissing the instant appeals. We have determined not to follow that course, however, because the record of the plea hearing is “murky” and sugges…
Previewing 3 of 11 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)
- 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)