MARKAE DEVONTAE MASSEY
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
The appellate court affirmed a defendant's convictions for armed robbery and firearm possession, holding that the denial of his motion to continue was not an abuse of discretion and that the issue was not properly preserved for appeal after a guilty plea.
The appellate court held that the denial of the motion to continue was not a palpable abuse of discretion. Furthermore, the issue was not preserved for appeal because the appellant did not expressly reserve the right to appeal the denial of the motion to continue after entering his guilty plea.
[1] A defendant may appeal an issue following a guilty plea only if the issue is expressly reserved and dispositive; implicit reservation is insufficient.
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 intelligence“A defendant may only appeal an issue after a guilty plea if the issue is expressly reserved and dispositive.”
This quote establishes the rule for appealing issues after a guilty plea.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant pleaded guilty to armed robbery and firearm possession charges. He appealed, arguing the trial court erred by denying a motion to continue. …
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 Issue cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant pleaded guilty to four counts of armed robbery and one count of possession of a firearm by a juvenile delinquent found to have committed a felony. On appeal, he seeks reversal of his convictions and sentence, arguing the trial court erred in denying a motion to continue. A defendant may only appeal an issue after a guilty plea if the issue is expressly reserved and dispositive. Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A)(i). Appellant did not expressly reserve the right to appeal the denial of the motion to continue. See Terry v. State, 149 So. 3d 113 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).
Appellant asserts he implicitly reserved the right to appeal what must be a dispositive issue. Even if the issue had been preserved, we would affirm. The denial of a motion to continue
will not be reversed absent a “palpable abuse of discretion,” which is not present in the record here. See Magill v. State, 386 So. 2d 1188, 1188 (Fla. 1980). An experienced public defender was appointed to represent Appellant in this case and in his accompanying violation of probation (VOP) case. Appellant quickly discharged the public defender in this case, but she remained counsel in his VOP case. Appellant declined the trial court’s renewed offer of counsel numerous times pre-trial. The trial court conducted the appropriate Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), inquiries, held a competency hearing, and ultimately found no reason to deny Appellant’s request to proceed to trial pro se. The trial court appointed the public defender as standby counsel. The public defender expressed concern Appellant was not prepared because he had not deposed several witnesses, but Appellant remained steadfast in his desire to proceed to trial pro se. After the jury was sworn and just before witnesses (who had been flown in last minute at the State’s expense) were called, Appellant requested counsel. The public defender moved to continue so that she could adequately prepare. The trial court recessed to give her time to interview witnesses and review the evidence. After the recess, Appellant entered a guilty plea to the charges. Given the circumstances of this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to continue. For these reasons, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
B.L. THOMAS, ROBERTS, and LONG, JJ., concur. _____________________________