SAMUEL JAMES SHUMAN, 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.
Affirmed on procedural grounds: appellant who pleaded guilty without expressly reserving the right to appeal cannot challenge the trial court's denial of a motion to suppress identifications.
A defendant who pleads guilty without expressly reserving the right to appeal cannot raise suppression issues on appeal unless the issue is dispositive and the parties stipulate to its dispositive nature.
[1] A defendant who pleads guilty without expressly reserving the right to appeal cannot raise suppression issues on appeal unless the issue is dispositive of the case and th…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSamuel James Shuman was identified by a jail inmate through a photo procedure that Shuman contended was unduly suggestive and raised a substantial lik…
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 Suggestive Identification Procedures cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Samuel James Shuman (Appellant) contends that the trial court erred in denying a motion to suppress out-of-court and in-court identifications of him by an allegedly unreliable jail inmate based on an unduly suggestive photo procedure that raised a substantial likelihood of misidentification. See Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 107, 110 & 116, 97 S.Ct. 2243, 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977); Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972); Grant v. State, 390 So. 2d 341, 343 (Fla.1980) (setting out appropriate two-step test for determining admissibility of out-of-court photo identification). We affirm. The State correctly responds that the trial court’s ruling is affirmable on either of two grounds. A defendant who pleads guilty must expressly reserve the right to appeal. See § 924.051(4) & -.06(3), Fla. Stat. (2003); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.172(c)(4). An issue is preserved on a guilty plea only if it is dispositive of the case. See State v. Carr, 438 So. 2d 826, 828 (Fla.1983). Appellant pled guilty without expressly reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motions to suppress. The parties did not stipulate that the issue is dispositive. Accordingly, the sole issue raised on appeal is not preserved. We need not address the State’s alternative ground for affirmance on the merits.
Appellant’s judgmenVsentence is AFFIRMED.
ERVIN, BENTON and BROWNING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (U.S. 1972)
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (U.S. 1977)
- Grant v. State, 390 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 1980)
- State v. Carr, 438 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 1983)