CARL EUGENE THOMAS, 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.
Carl Eugene Thomas appealed his conviction and sentence following a nolo contendere plea, arguing he preserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. The appellate court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, holding that a conditional plea is only permissible when the legal issue to be appealed is dispositive of the case, and neither party stipulated nor the trial court found that the suppression ruling was dispositive.
The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because a conditional nolo contendere plea is permissible only when the legal issue to be appealed is dispositive of the case. Here, the parties did not stipulate and the trial court did not find that the ruling on the motion to suppress was dispositive, rendering the appeal improper.
[1] A defendant may not appeal from a nolo contendere plea except where the defendant expressly reserves the right to appeal a prior dispositive order of the lower tribunal.
[2] A conditional plea of nolo contendere is permissible only if the legal issue to be appealed is dispositive of the case.
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“A conditional [plea] of nolo contendere is permissible only if the legal issue to be appealed is dispositive of the case.”
Establishes the foundational requirement that conditional pleas are limited to dispositive issues
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarl Eugene Thomas entered a nolo contendere plea that was conditioned on his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. The trial court in…
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
PER CURIAM.
Carl Eugene Thomas appeals his conviction and sentence following a nolo conten-dere plea conditioned on his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A)® (2006) (providing that a defendant “may not appeal from a guilty or nolo contendere plea except” where the defendant “expressly reserve[s] the right to appeal a prior disposi-tive order of the lower tribunal”).
See also, e.g., Robinson v. State, 885 So. 2d 951, 953 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (“A conditional plea of nolo contendere is permissible only if the legal issue to be appealed is disposi-tive of the case.”); Morgan v. State, 486 So. 2d 1356, 1357 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (“An issue is dispositive only if, regardless of whether the appellate court affirms or reverses the lower court’s decision, there will be no trial of the case.”).
The parties did not stipulate that the motion to suppress presented a dispositive issue and the trial court did not find that its ruling on appellant’s motion was dispos-itive. The prosecutor took no position when the court informed appellant that he could appeal the motion’s denial, and the court so informed appellant without addressing the question of whether the ruling was dispositive. See Morgan, 486 So. 2d at 1359 n. 3 (“Fairness dictates that the defendant should be given the opportunity to withdraw his plea of nolo contende-re.”).
Cf. Ashley v. State, 611 So. 2d 617, 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (dismissing the appeal without prejudice so that appellant could raise a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion to withdraw his plea, where “[t]he attorneys and the court were mistaken in their assumptions that the ruling on the motion ... was disposi-tive”).
Nor did the parties ever address the question of the suppression order’s dispositiveness in the trial court. Compare, e.g., State v. Carr, 438 So. 2d 826, 827-28 (Fla.1983) (holding defendant was not entitled to withdraw nolo plea where the State had objected that the order was not dispositive and the trial court informed the defendant of the rights he would surrender before the plea was entered).
Dismissed.
DAVIS, BENTON, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Carr, 438 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 1983)
- Morgan v. State, 486 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Manning v. State, 611 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Kendrick Robinson v. State, 885 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)