ANGELA CARR, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
ANGELA CARR, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
421 So. 2d 1098
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1982)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
The trial court having concluded that its order on motion to compel was not disposi-tive of the case, the appeal is dismissed. Pursuant to the procedure suggested in Gray v. State, 379 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), the trial court shall allow appellant thirty days from the date of this order within which to file a motion to withdraw her plea. The trial court shall grant such motion unless the state is able to establish prejudice as a result of the delay engendered by this appeal. Should appellant not be allowed to withdraw her plea, she may seek review of the order denying withdrawal by filing a new appeal in this court.
ANSTEAD, BERANEK and GLICK-STEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Carr, 438 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 1983)…PER CURIAM. This is a petition to review Carr v. State, 421 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…
-
Head v. State, 604 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…motion to suppress as disposi-tive. No motion to withdraw Head’s plea has been made before appeal. After Brown was decided in 1979, our supreme court revisited the issue of conditional nolo pleas when it took for review the case of Carr v. State, 421 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), and the court wrote, “[w]e agree and 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, 828 (Fla.1983). However, the court went…
-
German A. Gomez and Florentino Molina v. State, 437 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…leas. This is not a situation where a defendant has been misled into believing a ruling was dispositive only to have an appellate court find that it was not, and that, therefore, it was without jurisdiction over the appeal. See, e.g., Carr v. State, 421 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Coleman v. State, 417 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Kjersgaard v. State, 383 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Gray v. State, 381 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Arnold v. State, 379 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). Instead, as sho…
Authorities Cited
- 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)