RICKY LYNN RUST, 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.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress, finding it was properly denied.
The defendant pleaded no contest, seeking to preserve the denial of his motion to suppress for appeal. The trial judge deferred ruling on whether the …
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 Anders Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this Anders1 appeal, Ricky Lynn Rust seeks reversal of the denial of a motion to suppress. We have reviewed the hearing on the motion and agree that the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress. We write this opinion in order to remind trial judges of their responsibility to announce whether reserved issues are dispositive for purposes of appeal. See Everett v. State, 535 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).
Here, Rust entered a plea of no contest and sought to preserve for appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. Misled by Rust’s court-appointed counsel and the assistant state attorney, the trial judge erroneously declined to determine if the motion to suppress was dispositive, deferring the matter to the appellate court.
Without a ruling from the trial court that the motion was dispositive, this appeal could be dismissed or remanded to the trial court for a ruling. However, because this case has been presented pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we have reviewed the entire record and for the purposes of judicial economy, conclude the motion to suppress was dispositive, and properly denied. Accordingly, we affirm.
BLUE, A.C.J., and FULMER and DAVIS, JJ., Concur. . Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hawk v. State, 848 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…of disposi-tiveness and it was the trial court’s duty to thereafter rule. See Ramsey v. State, 766 So. 2d 397, 397 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (“It is the trial court’s duty to announce whether preserved issues are dispositive.”) (citing Rust v. State, 742 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Moore v. State, 647 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)). Furthermore, Brown v. State, 376 So. 2d 382 (Fla.1979), has been interpreted as holding that in cases where the defendant is charged only with possession, such as in the instan…
-
Ramsey v. State, 766 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…garding whether the denial of the motion to suppress was dispositive when he asserted that he wished to preserve his appellate rights in this case. It is the trial court's duty to announce whether preserved issues are dispositive. See Rust v. State, 742 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Moore v. State, 647 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Although typically we would remand for a determination of whether the preserved issue is disposi-tive, that is not necessary in this case because the denial of the motion to supp…
-
Dannie Stanford Holden, Jr. v. State, 90 So. 3d 902 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…tion or questions. Everett v. State, 535 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). The majority has concluded, in essence, as a matter of judicial economy and based upon review of the entire record, to affirm. There is authority for such action. Rust v. State, 742 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Nonetheless, without a ruling from the trial court as to whether the above two issues were dispositive, I am of the opinion this case should be remanded to the trial court for appropriate findings. [*905] As discussed in Judge…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Everett v. State, 535 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)