ADRIAN PITRADE HEAD, 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.
Adrian Pitrade Head entered a nolo contendere plea to nine crimes while reserving the right to appeal a suppression motion denial. On appeal, Head sought to withdraw his plea, claiming the trial court erred in finding the suppression motion dispositive for conditional plea purposes. The court affirmed the denial of withdrawal but reversed and remanded the sentencing for clarification.
The court affirmed the denial of Head's request to withdraw his plea, reasoning that Head had adequate notice of the legal requirements following Brown v. State and Carr v. State, failed to object at trial, and did not move to withdraw the plea before appeal. The court reversed the sentencing and remanded for clarification because the stacking of sentences exceeded the maximum permitted guidelines range.
[1] A conditional nolo contendere plea is permissible only when the legal issue to be determined on appeal is dispositive of the case.
[2] A confession may not be considered dispositive of the case for purposes of a conditional nolo contendere plea.
Previewing 2 of 6 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 conditional "nolo plea is permissible only when the legal issue to be determined on appeal is dispositive of the case." Brown v. State, 376 So.2d 382, 384 (Fla.1979). "[A]s a matter of law a confession may not be considered dispositive of the case for purposes of an [State v.] Ashby [245 So.2d 225 (Fla.1971) ] nolo plea."”
Establishes the legal standard for conditional nolo pleas and that confessions/suppression motions cannot serve as dispositive issues.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHead entered a nolo contendere plea to nine crimes and was sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment. At the time of the plea, the trial judge declar…
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
RYDER, Judge.
The appellant (Head) entered a plea of nolo contendere to nine crimes reserving for appeal the trial judge’s denial of Head's motion to suppress his confession. In the process of accepting the plea, the court below declared that the motion to suppress was dispositive and, thereafter, sentenced Head to varying terms and conditions of imprisonment.
On appeal, however, Head does not attack the court’s denial of the motion to suppress. Instead, Head urges this court to allow him to withdraw his plea because the judge erred in declaring the motion to suppress dispositive. Head is dissatisfied with the sentence he received and attacks that as well.
The record complicates this appeal by disclosing the fact that the assistant state attorney opposed the holding of the court below that the motion to suppress was dispositive at the time the plea was entered. However, the state now argues that despite the position of the state attorney below, we should affirm the ruling of the trial court.
A conditional “nolo plea is permissible only when the legal issue to be determined on appeal is dispositive of the case.” Brown v. State, 376 So. 2d 382, 384 (Fla.1979). “[A]s a matter of law a confession may not be considered dispositive of the case for purposes of an [State v.] Ashby [245 So. 2d 225 (Fla.1971) ] nolo plea.” Brown at 385.
So, based on Brown, and the opposition mounted by the state attorney, Head urges us to hold the trial court erred in finding the motion to suppress as disposi-tive.
No motion to withdraw Head’s plea has been made before appeal.
After Brown was decided in 1979, our supreme court revisited the issue of conditional nolo pleas when it took for review the case of Carr v. State, 421 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), and the court wrote, “[w]e agree and reiterate our holding in Brown: an issue is preserved for appeal on a nolo plea only if it is dispositive of the case.” State v. Carr, 438 So. 2d 826, 828 (Fla.1983). However, the court went further to explain Brown, adding “[w]e granted leave to the petitioner in Brown to withdraw his plea because of possible prejudice in retroactively applying the Brown holding. However, Brown was issued in 1979, well before events here, and Carr was on notice of the Brown holding. Relief is not appropriate.” Carr at 828. Both Brown and Carr were issued “well before events here,” and Head was on notice, did not object to the ruling of the trial court and did not move to withdraw his plea. Again, relief is not appropriate, and thus we affirm on this issue.
Both Head and the state express confusion regarding the sentencing. The shorthand manner in which the trial judge stacked appellant’s sentences is admittedly difficult to decipher. Without detailing the multiple sentences and probation orders, we conclude that it was sufficiently clear that the trial judge intended to impose two consecutive three-year minimum mandato-ries. However, a clarification is in order concerning the additional three-year prison sentences for the two counts in circuit court ease no. 90-11808. If imposed consecutively to the seventeen-year prison sentence in circuit court case no. 90-11622 (as the judge intended with respect to the accompanying three-year minimum mandatory), the sentence would then exceed the maximum permitted guidelines range of seventeen years. For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the sentence and remand the case for a clarification of the sentences.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
LEHAN, C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nobles v. State, 605 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…2d DCA 1985); Brudie v. State, 467 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Since we have concluded that the oral pronouncement of the sentences was ambiguous, we remand this case to the trial court for clarification of these sentences. See Head v. State,, 604 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). PATTERSON and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.…
-
Maxwell v. State, 917 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…llant’s [*407] confession was dispositive.”) (citing Jackson; Oesterle). In cases where the state did not stipulate the issue was dispositive, the courts have applied Brown and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See, e.g., Head v. State, 604 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Wright v. State, 547 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Although we are not bound by such a stipulation, we are unable to determine from the record that this issue is not dispositive. . In Chavez, the court discussed the defendant'…
-
Blanco v. State, 752 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…nco’s right to appeal hinged on the dispositiveness question. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See State v. Carr, 438 So. 2d 826, 828 (Fla.1983) (dismissing appeal of nondispositive ruling without granting right to withdraw plea); Head v. State, 604 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Appeal dismissed. STRINGER, J., and MENENDEZ, MANUEL, Jr., Associate Judge, Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Ashby, 245 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1971)
- Brown v. State, 376 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 1979)
- State v. Carr, 438 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 1983)
- Carr v. State, 421 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)