BAULDY A. SHARPE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
BAULDY A. SHARPE, APPELLANT,
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
589 So. 2d 964
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1991)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
The denial of a motion to disclose the identity of a confidential informant, which was arguably sought to be preserved for appellate review by the appellant’s nolo plea, is not a dispositive order. The appeal is therefore dismissed, Roob v. State, 572 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), without prejudice to an application for withdrawal of the plea. Roob, 572 So. 2d at 1023; cf. Gibson v. State, 386 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (plea ordered withdrawn when, unlike this case, it was clear all parties relied on appealability of order).
Appeal dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Orientus Werner v. State, 828 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…is not dispositive. See Seabrook v. State, 620 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). The appeal is dismissed without prejudice to the defendant’s right to withdraw the plea and for relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Sharpe v. State, 589 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Root v. State, 572 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Appeal dismissed.…
-
Seabrook v. State, 620 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…s did not stipulate that the issue was dispositive. In fact, the State argued below that it would be able to go forward without the confidential informant’s testimony. Therefore, the issue was not preserved for appellate review. See Sharpe v. State, 589 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Everett v. State, 535 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); D.K.G. v. State, 460 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.…
Authorities Cited
- Davis v. State, 572 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Oleanga Gibson v. State, 386 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)