ROBERTO CARDOZA, 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 has jurisdiction to review a defendant's appeal of a denied motion to suppress, even without a separate written order, as long as the ruling is preserved in the record and necessary to pass upon the grounds of appeal.
Roberto Cardoza was convicted of drug offenses after pleading no contest, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence.…
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 Jurisdiction On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
VILLANTI, Judge.
Roberto Cardoza appeals his convictions for possession of heroin, possession of cannabis, and possession of drug paraphernalia. After the denial of his motion to suppress evidence found subsequent to a search, Cardoza entered pleas of no contest to the charges and reserved the right to appeal the denial of his dispositive motion. We affirm.
We write to address only the State’s argument that this court lacks jurisdiction because the record does not contain a written order denying the motion to suppress. The State relies on State v. Moore, 563 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), for this proposition but unlike here, Moore involved an appeal by the State. Thus, Moore is inapposite and cannot support the State’s argument. The State’s right to appeal is set out in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(c)(1). When the State appeals an order suppressing evidence obtained by search and seizure, the order must be “rendered,” which means a filed, written order, for this court to have jurisdiction. See Moore, 563 So. 2d at 115.
Because Cardoza, the criminal defendant below, is the appellant, this appeal is governed by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b)(2)(A)(i). The operative written order in a defendant’s appeal of an order denying a motion to suppress for jurisdictional purposes is the judgment and sentence. Further, rule 9.140(i) states that the appellate court “shall review all rulings and orders appearing in the record necessary to pass upon the grounds of an appeal.” The court’s ruling on the motion to suppress was properly preserved for appeal and is a ruling “appearing in the record necessary to pass upon the grounds of an appeal.” Although it would be pref erable for all orders and rulings to be entered in writing, the rule does not require that this occur in order to vest jurisdiction in this court of a defense appeal of an order denying a motion to dismiss.
Affirmed.
FULMER, C.J., and STRINGER, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reynel Diaz Hijuelos v. State, 73 So. 3d 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…d to timely invoke the Court’s jurisdiction. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(b)(3). “The operative written order in a defendant’s appeal of an order denying a motion to suppress for jurisdictional purposes is the judgment and sentence.” Cardoza v. State, 927 So. 2d 1028, 1029 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). In the plenary appeal, a defendant may challenge the denial of a motion to suppress even where the denial was not reduced to writing and filed with the clerk of court. Id. However, a defendant in a criminal proceeding may n…
-
Smith v. State, 75 So. 3d 800 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…tion pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b)(2)(A)(i). In addition, the State’s claim that this court is unable to review the denial of a motion to suppress without a written suppression order is without merit. See Cardoza v. State, 927 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). . We must accept the lower court's finding in this regard because it is supported by the record. See Curtis v. State, 748 So. 2d 370, 371 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Moore, 563 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)