DANIEL PATRICK GAINEY, 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 relinquished jurisdiction to the trial court to determine whether the suppression ruling was dispositive of the case, as required for appellate review of an Ashby nolo plea.
An appeal by a defendant in an Ashby nolo plea situation is allowable only if the issue raised is dispositive.
[1] An appeal from a nolo contendere plea is permissible only when the issue raised is dispositive of the case.
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 intelligenceDefendant was arrested and certain physical evidence was obtained; he moved to suppress the evidence, which was denied.…
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
BERANEK, Judge.
Defendant appealed, contesting the denial of his motion to suppress certain physical evidence obtained at the time of his arrest. After denial of his motion to suppress, the defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere reserving his right to appeal the court’s ruling on suppression. We have reviewed the entire record and the briefs of the parties and seriously question whether the ruling on the motion to suppress is dispositive of the case. Since an appeal by a defendant in an Ashby nolo plea situation is allowable only if the issue raised is dispositive, we relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court for a period of forty days with directions to determine whether the ruling on the motion to suppress was dispositive. Brown v. State, 376 So. 2d 382 (Fla.1979); State v. Ashby, 245 So. 2d 225 (Fla.1971). The trial court is requested to enter an order on this issue. Thereafter, it shall be appellant’s responsibility to supplement the record by filing a certified copy of the court’s order and advising this court in writing of the necessity of our resuming jurisdiction for the purpose of deciding the appeal. See Gray v. State, 379 So. 2d 435 (FLa. 2d DCA 1980).
JURISDICTION RELINQUISHED FOR STATED PURPOSE.
LETTS, C. J., and GLICKSTEIN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Leisure v. State, 429 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…n should be granted unless the State can show that by reason of events occurring since the entry of the plea, it has been prejudiced in now being able to prove its case. Pittman v. State, 382 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); see also Gainey v. State, 386 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), and Gray v. State, 379 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). Finally, we note that our holding in this case does not conflict with our previous decisions in Alexander v. State, 399 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), Puccio v. State, 424…
-
Gainey v. State, 396 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…al of his motion to suppress certain physical _ evidence. We relinquished jurisdiction 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. Gainey v. State, 386 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). The trial court entered an order on October 14, 1980, finding that the motion to suppress did not present a dispos-itive issue. The defendant’s nolo conten-dere plea was entered prior to the date of Brown v. State, 376 So. 2d 38…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Ashby, 245 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1971)
- Brown v. State, 376 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 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)