MARION
v.
STATE
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.
Appellant Hamilton appealed his conviction following a plea of nolo contendre, challenging primarily the denial of his motion to suppress. The appellate court affirmed, finding that Appellant waived his right to appeal the suppression motion by failing to preserve it, and that even if preserved, the trial court properly denied the motion.
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that Appellant waived his right to appeal the denial of the suppression motion by failing to preserve it. Additionally, even if the right had been preserved, the trial court correctly denied the motion to suppress because the arrest was based on a supervening cause—an outstanding writ of bodily attachment—rather than the initial stop itself.
[1] A defendant waives the right to appeal the denial of a motion to suppress by entering a nolo contendere plea without preserving the issue for appeal.
[2] A lawful stop based on credible information from a citizen-informant can justify subsequent searches and seizures.
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“Appellant failed to preserve his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress; consequently, he has waived or lost this right and his conviction must be affirmed.”
Establishes the primary basis for affirmance—failure to preserve appellate rights regarding the suppression ruling.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing entry of a plea of nolo contendre, Appellant Hamilton appealed his conviction. The appeal centered on whether a deputy's encounter with Appe…
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 Supervening Cause cases and more on FLexlaw
Before POWELL, HIGBEE, and JOHNSON, J.J.
PER CURIAM.
FINAL ORDER AFFIRMING TRIAL COURT
Following entry of a plea of nolo contendre and imposition of sentence, Appellant Hamilton takes this appeal. Oral argument is dispensed with pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.320. We affirm.
Appellant failed to preserve his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress; consequently, he has waived or lost this right and his conviction must be affirmed. See §§ 2 of 3 924.051(4), 924.06(3), Florida Statutes; Marion v. State, 913 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Camerota v. State, 959 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 4th 2007).
Even had Appellant preserved his right to appeal, and regardless of whether the deputy’s encounter with Appellant was an unlawful investigative stop or a lawful stop based upon credible information from a citizen-informant, the trial court correctly denied the motion to suppress. See State v. Frierson, 926 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 2006); Golphin v. State, 945 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 2006), cert. den., 552 U.S. 810 (2007). Applying the three factor test in Frierson, the record establishes the following: (1) little time elapsed between the initial encounter and the arrest, pat-down search, and seizure of the marihuana and drug paraphernalia; (2) the arrest was based on a supervening cause of an outstanding writ of bodily attachment1 and not the stop; (3) there was no misconduct on the part of the deputy.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant’s conviction is
AFFIRMED.
DONE AND ORDERED at Orlando, Florida this _24th day of __June______, 2013.
/S/_________________________
ROM W. POWELL Senior Judge
/S/
/S/__________________________ HEATHER L. HIGBEE ANTHONY H. JOHNSON Circuit Judge Circuit Judge
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing order was furnished to James Stevenson Fisher, Assistant Public Defender, 435 N. Orange Avenue, Ste. 400, Orlando, Florida 32801; Dugald McMillan, Assistant State Attorney, 415 N. Orange Avenue, Ste. 200, Orlando, Florida 32802-1673; and Honorable Nancy L. Clark, 425 N. Orange Avenue, Orlando, Florida 32801, by mail, this __24th__ day of _June__________, 2013.
/S/_________________________________
Judicial Assistant
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Frierson, 926 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 2006)
- Golphin v. State, 945 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 2006)
- Marion v. State, 913 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Camerota v. State, 959 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)