STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JENNIFER MASKER, APPELLEE
GRIFFIN, J.
This is the State’s appeal of the trial court’s order suppressing evidence consisting of urine test results on the authority of State v. Bodden, 27 Fla. L. Weekly D2382, — So. 2d —, 2002 WL 31421575 (Fla. 2d DCA Oct.30, 2002), review granted, 853 So. 2d 1071 (Fla.2003).1 We recently decided State v. Pierre, 854 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), in which we disagreed with Bodden, reversed the suppression order and certified conflict with Bodden. Following Pierre, we again reverse the appealed order and certify conflict with Bodden.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
SHARP, W., and PETERSON, JJ., concur. . This case was certified to be one of great public importance. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.160(e)(2).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Godfrey v. State, 947 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…om the face of the record; and (3) the record does not indicate a waiver of the double jeopardy violation. Novaton v. State, 634 So. 2d 607, 609 (Fla.1994). A “straight up” or “open plea” does not amount to a bargained for plea. Williamson v. State, 859 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Because appellant in the instant case entered a non-bargained for, “straight up” plea, without expressly waiving his right to a later appeal premised on a double jeopardy issue, his plea did not amount to a waiver. See Novaton,…
-
Latos v. State, 39 So. 3d 511 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…one where no agreement exists as to the sentence the defendant will receive; “[a]n agreement to a specific sentence or a specific sentencing benefit is a key element distinguishing a bargained plea agreement from a general one.” Williamson v. State, 859 So. 2d 553, 554 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Here, despite the state’s assertion of a plea agreement based on some “off-the-record” substantial assistance negotiations, the record shows that appellant entered a general plea to [*514] the trial judge. At the plea heari…
-
Tyler v. State, 107 So. 3d 547 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…ter offense contains a statutory element not found in the former, i.e., intent to sell, the reverse is not true.”); see also State v. Williams, 731 So. 2d 635, 637 (Fla.1998); Gibbs, 698 So. 2d at 1209; Melton, 73 So. 3d at 297; Williamson v. State, 859 So. 2d 553, 554 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Ford v. State, 749 So. 2d 570, 571 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). In the seminal Johnson opinion, the court focused on a single branch of the trafficking statute, the so-called “possession component,” to the exclusion of other statut…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Josias Pierre, Jr., 854 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)