DAVID ANTHONY WEBER, 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.
Weber appealed the denial of his motion to suppress a confession after pleading nolo contendere to first-degree murder. The appellate court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, holding that an issue is preserved for appeal on a nolo contendere plea only if it is dispositive of the case, and the record contained no stipulation or evidence that the confession issue was dispositive.
An appellate court lacks jurisdiction to reach the merits of an appeal on a nolo contendere plea unless the issue on appeal is dispositive of the case. Where there is no stipulation between the parties establishing dispositiveness and the record evidence shows the state had additional evidence beyond the confession, the issue is not dispositive and the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
[1] An issue is preserved for appeal following a nolo contendere plea only if the issue is dispositive of the case.
[2] An appellate court lacks jurisdiction to reach the merits of an appeal if the issue raised on appeal was not dispositive in the lower court.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“An issue is preserved for appeal on a nolo contendere plea only if it is dispositive of the case.”
Establishes the fundamental jurisdictional requirement for preserving issues on nolo contendere pleas
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWeber was charged with first-degree murder. The lower court denied his motion to suppress his confession. After this denial, Weber changed his plea fr…
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 Motion To Suppress Confession cases and more on FLexlaw
COLBATH, WALTER N., JR., Associate Judge.
This is an appeal from final judgment of the lower court adjudicating appellant guilty of first degree murder and sentencing him to life imprisonment.
After the lower court denied appellant’s motion to suppress his confession, appellant changed his plea from not guilty to nolo contendere, specifically reserving the right to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress. We would like to reach the merits of this appeal, but conclude that to do so would be improper. An issue is preserved for appeal on a nolo contendere plea only if it is disposi-tive of the case. Brown v. State, 376 So. 2d 382 (Fla.1979); State v. Carr, 438 So. 2d 826 (Fla.1983). Courts in numerous cases have held that the matter is jurisdictional, i.e., the appellate court cannot reach the merits of an appeal if the issue on appeal was not dispositive below. See Carr, supra; Duckworth v. State, 469 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); D.K.G. v. State, 460 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Banks v. State, 467 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Finney v. State, 420 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Sune v. State, 402 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Hardison v. State, 385 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Arnold v. State, 379 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).
The only case unearthed by this court’s research which actually reached the merits is Turner v. State, 429 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), where the court affirmed the lower court’s judgment and sentence although it found that the lower court’s denial of defendant’s motion to suppress his confession was not dispositive. The Turner court stated that consideration of the merits would be improper where the issue raised on appeal was not dispositive, but then went on to do exactly that, affirming the lower court’s judgment. The later case of Duckworth cites Turner for the proposition that the matter is jurisdictional.
We conclude that we must dismiss for lack of jurisdiction unless we determine that the issue was dispositive. If there is record evidence of a stipulation between the parties that the issue was dispositive, then we can reach the merits. See Finney, supra, and Jackson v. State, 382 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), aff'd, 392 So. 2d 1324 (Fla.1981). There is no language in the record that could be interpreted to constitute such a stipulation, however, and in fact the state attorney’s detailed recitation of the evidence it would offer at trial makes it clear that the confession was not dispositive.
In Leisure v. State, 429 So. 2d 434, 437 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), appeal after remand, 437 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), the court implied a finding of dispositiveness but distinguished cases involving confessions as they are nondispositive as a matter of law. We do not think that we can fairly imply a finding of dispositiveness here. Apparently, no one present at the trial was aware of the dispositiveness requirement; and since the court told the defendant the issue was reserved for appeal, we might reason that we will imply a stipulation between the parties that the confession issue was dispositive. Such reasoning, however, would stretch the principles set forth in the aforecited cases to impermissible limits. For the reasons stated above and based upon the competent authority cited herein, this case is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
DELL and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Everett v. State, 535 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…he motion to suppress); see also Jackson v. State, 382 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), affirmed, 392 So. 2d 1324 (Fla.1981) (Brown does not foreclose a stipulation-that question associated with confession can be dispositive); but see Weber v. State, 492 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (in absence of stipulation that issue would be dispositive, appellate court will not imply dispositiveness from trial court’s statement that issue was reserved for appeal). Before turning to the two issues we have concluded to r…
-
White v. State, 830 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…ion to suppress his confession. Although White entered a nolo plea specifically reserving his right to appeal, the motion is not dispositive. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.140 (b) (2) (A) (i) (2000); Brown v. State, 376 So. 2d 382 (Fla.1979); Weber v. State, 492 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Werner v. State, 828 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). In the absence of a dispositive motion or a stipulation by the parties to that effect, we must dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. See Weber, 492 So. 2d at 1167. DISMISSED. K…
-
Levine v. State, 788 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…because it was not dispositive of the case below. An issue is preserved for appeal on a guilty plea only if it is dispositive of the case. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(b)(2)(A); Zambuto v. State, 731 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); see also Weber v. State, 492 So. 2d 1166, 1167 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). “An issue is legally dispositive ‘only if, regardless of whether the appellate court affirms or reverses the lower court’s decision, there will be no trial of the case.’ ” Zambuto, 731 So. 2d at 46 (quoting Vaughn v. State…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (15 total)
- Brown v. State, 376 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 1979)
- Logan Finney v. State, 420 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Nat'l Brands, Inc. v. Willis, 382 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Jackson v. State, 392 So. 2d 1324 (Fla. 1981)
- State v. Carr, 438 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 1983)
- Hardison v. State, 385 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Leisure v. State, 429 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Ramos v. State, 429 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Arnold v. State, 379 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Jones v. State, 402 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)