BRANDON GREEN, 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.
Green appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress cocaine seized from his automobile and house. The case was complicated by Green's initial assertion that the suppression motion was dispositive of the trafficking charge, followed by his later concession on appeal that the automobile search was valid, raising questions about whether sufficient evidence remained to sustain the conviction.
The court could not determine from the record whether the suppression motion was actually dispositive and therefore relinquished jurisdiction to the trial court to conduct a hearing on this threshold question before the appellate court could properly decide the appeal on the merits.
[1] A defendant may reserve the right to appeal a suppression order by entering a nolo contendere plea, provided the motion to suppress is dispositive of the case.
[2] An appellate court may relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court to determine whether a suppression ruling is dispositive of the case.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“it is necessary that that motion be dispositive of the case for the purpose of reserving the right”
Trial judge establishing the legal requirement that a suppression motion must be dispositive to preserve appellate rights after a guilty plea
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice seized cocaine from both Green's automobile and his house. Green entered a nolo contendere plea to trafficking in cocaine while reserving the r…
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 Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
NIMMONS, Judge.
This is an appeal from the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress certain evidence seized by the police as a result of the search of the defendant’s automobile and nearby house. The defendant entered a nolo contendere plea to the offense of trafficking in cocaine, the court allowing the defendant to reserve the right to appeal from the suppression order. From the record, it appears that cocaine was seized from both the automobile and the house. At the time of the entry of the plea, the following colloquy occurred between the trial judge and defense counsel:
THE COURT: [I]t is necessary that that motion be dispositive of the case for the purpose of reserving the right and you assume it would be. I have no idea.
MS. SASSER: The motion was to suppress all the evidence, including the cocaine, which would be dispositive, your honor. THE COURT: I assume then it’s disposi-tive — would have been dispositive of the case.
As indicated from the above, the defendant’s motion to suppress was directed to the cocaine found in both the automobile and the house. However, the defendant has changed his position and has conceded on appeal — via his brief — the validity of the search of the automobile. The state, which had said nothing in the trial court regarding dispositiveness, now asserts, in view of the defendant’s subsequent concession regarding the validity of the auto search, that the motion was not dispositive because a quantity of at least 28 grams of cocaine was found in the auto and that the appeal should therefore be dismissed. If, in fact, such quantity was seized from the automobile, the motion would not be dispositive in which case the appellant’s appeal should not be disposed of on the merits.
Accordingly, we relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court for a period of 30 days with directions to conduct a hearing to determine whether the ruling on the motion to suppress is dispositive of the case and inform this court, via appropriate order, of its findings. The parties shall cause the record on appeal to be supplemented to reflect the further proceedings conducted pursuant to this order. SHIVERS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Green v. State, 526 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…linquished jurisdiction to the trial court for the purpose of conducting a hearing to determine whether the trial court’s ruling on the motion to suppress was dispositive of the case. Our opinion relinquishing jurisdiction appears in Green v. State, 508 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). As is evident from our earlier opinion, the question for resolution by the trial court upon relinquishment of jurisdiction was whether the quantity of cocaine seized from the subject automobile (exclusive of that which was sei…