LOUIS MARTINEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1983-01-18
No. 80-1742
Before BASKIN, DANIEL S. PEARSON and JORGENSON, JJ.
425 So. 2d 181 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1983) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

We relinquished jurisdiction to the trial court for the purpose of clarifying the agreement between the parties as to dispos-itiveness. See Martinez v. State, 420 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The agreement has now been clarified to reflect that the defendant’s nolo contendere plea was entered with the understanding that the State would not further prosecute if both the defendant’s statement at the scene of the accident and his later statement at the sta-tionhouse were suppressed. Because it appears that the defendant was sufficiently alerted to the fact that the accident report phase of the investigation had ended when, after his arrest for manslaughter and vehicular homicide and after being given Miranda warnings, he gave the statement at the stationhouse, we conclude that his motion to suppress such statement was properly denied and affirm the judgments of conviction.

Affirmed.

Dissent
BASKIN, Judge

BASKIN, Judge

(dissenting).

I abide by the views expressed in my dissenting opinion in Martinez v. State, 420 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (Baskin, J., dissenting). If this court’s decision regarding any reserved issue would permit the state to proceed to trial, the questions presented are not dispositive, and we may not accept review. Brown v. State, 376 So. 2d 382 (Fla.1979); Finney v. State, 420 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (Baskin, J., dissenting); Furr v. State, 420 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (Baskin, J., dissenting). The stipulation falls within the Brown prohibition. I would therefore decline review, permit Martinez to withdraw his plea, and allow the cause to proceed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Adams v. State, 448 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
    …n of the Coffey holding, numerous decisions still look to the accused’s knowledge that the accident investigation has ended as the dis-positive factor in ruling on a statement’s admissibility under the accident report statute. See Martinez v. State, 425 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (motion to suppress statement made at stationhouse properly denied where defendant was sufficiently alerted to fact that accident report phase of investigation had ended and homicide investigation begun); Porter v. Pappas, 368 So.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw