ANDRE SEABROOK, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
ANDRE SEABROOK, APPELLANT,
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
620 So. 2d 227
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1993)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
On consideration of the State’s motion for rehearing, we grant the motion, withdraw our opinion filed February 23, 1993, and substitute the following opinion in lieu thereof.
The trial court failed to make an express finding that the reserved issue was disposi-tive. Moreover, the parties 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Orientus Werner v. State, 828 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…nts he made to the police. The defendant attempted to preserve his right to appeal the trial court’s order. However, as both sides stipulated, the defendant does not have a right to appeal because the issue 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.…
Authorities Cited
- Everett v. State, 535 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- D.K.G. v. State, 460 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Bauldy A. Sharpe v. State, 589 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)