JONTELL B. PRINCE, 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.
Prince entered a nolo contendere plea after a motion to suppress was denied, and attempted to appeal the suppression ruling. The court dismissed the appeal because Prince failed to properly reserve his right to appeal as required by Florida law, and his signed plea agreement expressly waived appellate rights.
Prince did not validly reserve the right to appeal. The signed plea form expressly waived his right to appeal, the oral reservation was untimely, and it failed to identify with particularity which points of law in the motion to suppress were being reserved for appeal, as required by Florida law.
[1] A defendant who pleads nolo contendere may not appeal a prior dispositive order unless the right to appeal is expressly reserved.
[2] A reservation of the right to appeal a prior dispositive order following a nolo contendere plea must identify with particularity the point of law being reserved.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Absent an express reservation of the right to appeal, a defendant may not appeal from a judgment entered pursuant to a nolo contendere plea.”
Establishes the fundamental requirement for appealing from a nolo contendere plea in Florida
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePrince was charged with a crime and filed a motion to suppress evidence. After the motion was denied, Prince entered a nolo contendere plea. At senten…
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
STONE, J.
Following an order denying a motion to suppress, Prince entered a plea of nolo contendere without reserving a right to appeal the order. Prince argues that his attorney reserved a right to appeal by comments that were made after the sentence was imposed in the following exchange:
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I wanted to put on the record specifically he pled no contest. I’m reserving the right to appeal.
[PROSECUTOR]: Judge, I don’t know what your plea form reads as far as waiving the right to appeal.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: It wasn’t negotiated clearly.
THE COURT: He can always appeal. If I’m right, I’m right. If I’m wrong they’ll tell me.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I just have to put it on the record ...
We note that not only was the purported reservation untimely, but the signed plea form, submitted at the time of the plea colloquy, expressly waived his right to appeal.
Absent an express reservation of the right to appeal, a defendant may not appeal from a judgment entered pursuant to a nolo contendere plea. See Leonard v. State, 760 So. 2d 114 (Fla.2000); Hampton v. State, 680 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).
Rule 9.140(b) (2) (A) (i), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, provides that a defendant, who pleads nolo contendere, “may expressly reserve the right to appeal a prior dispositive order of the lower tribunal, identifying with particularity the point of law being reserved.”
Prince’s plea form provides that he gave up his “right to appeal any harmful error to a higher court.” The form does not present any indication to the contrary. Further, the attorney’s untimely statement, “I’m reserving the right to appeal,” does not identify, with particularity, the point of law reserved for appeal. Additionally, the trial court’s response does not indicate whether the court was belatedly accepting the plea with a reservation of the right to appeal.
Moreover, we note that, although Prince’s attorney indicated that the motion to suppress was dispositive, his statement “I’m reserving the right to appeal,” fails to identify which, of multiple points of law in the motion to suppress, was being reserved, and there is disagreement over whether the motion was dispositive. Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(b)(2); § 924.06(3), Fla. Stat. (2002).
Although we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to resolve the merits of the motion to suppress, we add that, if we were to resolve the issue raised on appeal, we can discern no error or abuse of discretion in the order denying the motion to suppress.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.
GUNTHER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lynwood Davis v. State, 4 So. 3d 734 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…PER CURIAM. This appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A)(i); Thomas v. State, 948 So. 2d 968, 969 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Prince v. State, 885 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Hawk v. State, 848 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). ALLEN, VAN NORTWICK, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.…
-
Scott v. State, 913 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Robinson v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla.1979); Prince v. State, 885 So. 2d 967, 968 (Fla. 4th D.CA 2004) (“Absent an express reservation of the right to appeal, a defendant may not appeal from a judgment entered pursuant to a nolo con-tendere plea.”). However, we remand the case to the trial court with directions for it to r…
Authorities Cited
- Leonard v. State, 760 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 2000)
- Peterson v. State, 680 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)