GEORGE B. WATSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), the public defender has suggested that the trial court erred by accepting George B. Watson’s guilty plea because of a possible double jeopardy issue. Watson waived his right to direct appeal by failing to make an express reservation of the right to appeal the double jeopardy issue. See Ford v. State, 556 So. 2d 483, 484 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). We note that Watson can raise this issue by collateral review. See id.
Accordingly, we affirm without prejudice to Watson to raise the double jeopardy issue by collateral review.
PARKER, C.J., and PATTERSON and BLUE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Anthol, 742 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…affect many other administrative proceedings involving the suspension of drivers’ licenses, we grant certiorari relief. See Haines City Community Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523, 530 (Fla.1995); Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Green, 702 So. 2d 584, 585 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); State, Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Shonyo, 659 So. 2d 352, 353 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Section 322.2615(11) provides that a “formal review hearing may be conducted upon a review of the reports of a law enforceme…
-
Lewis v. State, 827 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…), review denied, 654 So. 2d 130 (Fla.1995). Even if the plea agreement was not bargained for, Lewis is precluded from challenging her convictions based on a double jeopardy violation because she did not reserve the right to appeal. Watson v. State, 702 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Rodriguez v. State, 622 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Ford v. State, 556 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Wells v. State, 390 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). We therefore affirm her convictions. As to the second issue, a senten…
-
Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Cherry, 91 So. 3d 849 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…ess of its conclusion as to Ms. Cherry’s fifth issue. The right to an independent blood test only matures after the DUI arrestee submits to the DUI breath test and desires to obtain an independent test. See Dep’t of High. Saf. & Motor Veh. v. Green, 702 So. 2d 584, 586 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Thus, in this case, if the hearing officer was correct in her determination that Ms. Cherry’s actions constituted a refusal to submit to a breath test, it then follows that her right to seek an independent blood test did not…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Ford v. State, 556 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)