JAMES WESTERMEIER, 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 a nolo contendere plea is dismissed because he failed to expressly reserve the right to appeal, and his constitutional challenge to a sentencing anomaly is not a cognizable post-plea issue.
A defendant who enters an unconditional plea of nolo contendere without an express reservation of the right to appeal cannot challenge the resulting judgment and sentence on appeal.
[1] A defendant who enters an unconditional plea of nolo contendere without expressly reserving the right to appeal waives appellate review of the judgment and sentence.
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 intelligenceWestermeier was charged with being an accessory after the fact to leaving the scene of an accident involving personal injuries. He entered an uncondit…
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 Waiver Of Appellate Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
Appellant entered an unconditional plea of nolo contendere and has appealed the resulting judgment and sentence.
Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b) provides that a defendant may not appeal from a judgment entered upon a plea of nolo contendere without an express reservation of the right of appeal. Section 924.06(3), Florida Statutes (1979), is in accord.
Appellant was charged with being an accessory after the fact (§ 777.03, Fla.Stat. (1979)) to the felony of leaving the scene of an accident involving personal injuries (§ 316.027, Fla.Stat. (1979)) and is intrigued by the fact that he, as an accessory, is guilty of a third degree felony and is subject to five years imprisonment (§ 775.-082(3)(d), Fla.Stat. (1979)), while the person he aided is guilty of a felony subject to no more than one year imprisonment (§ 316.-027(2), Fla.Stat. (1979)). Appellant claims this result thwarts the legislative intent to appropriately differentiate between serious and minor offenses1 and renders these statutes unconstitutional as applied to him. This sentencing anomaly was apparent before appellant entered his plea, does not render appellant’s sentence illegal and is not one of the few issues arising contemporaneously with, or after, the entry of a plea which can be raised following a plea of guilty or an unqualified plea of nolo conten-dere. See Robinson v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla.1979); Hand v. State, 334 So. 2d 601 (Fla.1976).
The appeal of the judgment is dismissed and the sentence is
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH, C. J., and COBB, J., concur. . See § 775.012(4), Fla.Stat. (1979).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Gissendanner v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1979)
- Robinson v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1979)
- Hand v. State, 334 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1976)