LISA ANN WILSON, 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 court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the denial of the motion to suppress was not a dispositive order, and the defendant did not expressly reserve the right to appeal that order.
Lisa Wilson pled nolo contendere to 58 crimes after her motion to suppress her confession was denied. She appealed the denial of the suppression motio…
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 Dispositive Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PLEUS, J.
Lisa Wilson appeals her convictions and sentences for 58 separate crimes1 and argues that the lower court erred in denying her motion to suppress her confession. Because we conclude the denial of her motion was not dispositive, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
After the lower court denied Wilson’s motion to suppress, Wilson pled nolo contendere to the charges. Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b)(2)(A)(i) states that a defendant may not appeal from a guilty or nolo contendere plea except that the defendant “may expressly reserve the right to appeal a prior disposi-tive order of the lower tribunal, identifying with particularity the point of law being reserved.” An order denying a motion to suppress a confession is not dispositive for purposes of this rule unless the parties so stipulate. Brown v. State, 376 So. 2d 382 (Fla.1979); Debiasio v. State, 789 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). The prosecutor never signed the plea form, nor did he ever stipulate that the order was disposi-tive. Just the opposite. When the judge asked the prosecutor to stipulate, he would not do so. The conversation that ensued demonstrates that the prosecutor, judge and even the defense attorney all concluded that the order was not dispositive. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to address the merits of Wilson’s appeal.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
SAWAYA, C.J., and PETERSON, J., concur. . These crimes include 30 counts of burglary of a dwelling, 13 counts of grand theft, 12 counts of petit theft, and one count each of burglary of a dwelling while armed, possession of methamphetamine and possession of paraphernalia.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
England v. State, 46 So. 3d 127 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…o appeal a prior dispositive order and identified with particularity the point of law being reserved. “An order denying a motion to suppress a confession is not dispositive for purposes of this rule unless the parties so stipulate.” Wilson v. State, 885 So. 2d 959, 960 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); see also Blanco v. State, 752 So. 2d 79, 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (holding that “as a matter of law, the issue of whether a confession should be suppressed is not dispositive” unless “the State stipulates that it could not pro…
-
Maxwell v. State, 917 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…Buddies v. State, 845 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings. TORPY, J. and ROCHE, R.A., Associate Judge, concur. . Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). . Wilson v. State, 885 So. 2d 959, 960 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (noting that rule 9.140(b)(2)(A)(i) allows the appeal of a dispositive issue after a plea of guilty or nolo contendere; stating that "[a]n order denying a motion to suppress a confession is not dispositive for purposes of th…
-
Beermunder v. State, 191 So. 3d 1000 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…case it is clear that the-trial court determined in good faith that the issue was dispositive, and the parties likewise entered into a good faith stipulation to that effect. Thus, we can fully review this issue.”) (citing Ziegler); Wilson v. State, 885 So. 2d 959, 959-60 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) ("An order denying a motion to suppress a confession is not dispositive for purposes of this rule unless the parties so stipulate.”) (citing Brown v. State, 376 So. 2d 382 (Fla.1979)). Cases from other districts suggestin…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 376 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 1979)
- Debiasio v. State, 789 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)