CHARLES BONFIGLIO, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion To Suppress Confession cases and more on FLexlaw
In this appeal from a criminal judgment and sentence, the only order Charles Bon-figlio challenges is the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress his confession. Because there had been no determination by the trial court that the motion to suppress was dispositive, this court relinquished jurisdiction for the trial court to make a finding in that regard. Upon receipt of the trial court’s order determining that the motion to suppress was not dis-positive, this court issued an order to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, citing White v. State, 661 So.2d 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). White held that because there had been no express finding that the motion to suppress was dispositive, no issue had been preserved for appellate review and the court was required to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Id. at 40.
Upon further examination of the applicable law, the court discharges its order to show cause. Rather than dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction, we summarily affirm pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a) because the only issue on appeal is not reviewable on the merits. See M.N. v. State, 16 So.3d 280, 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (en banc) (citing Leonard v. State, 760 So.2d 114, 119 (Fla.2000), for the proposition that “district courts should not dismiss appeals from pleas upon a determination that they do not present a dispositive issue that was reserved for review but should summarily affirm such decisions”).
Affirmed.
WHATLEY, NORTHCUTT, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ruilova v. State, 125 So. 3d 991 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…Reform Act of 1996,5 this third determination typically resulted in a dismissal of the [*995] appeal.6 Following the supreme court’s decision in Leonard v. State, 760 So. 2d 114 (Fla.2000), such cases are typically affirmed. See Bonfiglio v. State, 57 So. 3d 990 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); M.N. v. State, 16 So. 3d 280 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). When the reservation has been a condition of the defendant’s plea, this outcome often results in an express declaration that the defendant may have, the right to withdraw the plea…
-
Damanta Jamar Murphy v. State, 149 So. 3d 1163 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…thus too late to preserve the issue for appeal as otherwise allowed under rule 9.140(b)(2)(A)(ii). Even if we remanded this case for a determination of whether the motion to suppress was dispositive, as the appellate court did in Bonfiglio v. State, 57 So. 3d 990 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011), the time limitations governing motions to withdraw could not be met. As noted in Williams v. State, 134 So. 3d 975, 977-78 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012): “Even if Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170 is no longer available to appellant…
-
Jones v. State, 122 So. 3d 426 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…ight to appeal a prior dispositive order of the lower tribunal, identifying with particularity the point of law being re [*427] served.” Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A)(i); see also Leonard v. State, 760 So. 2d 114, 119 (Fla.2000); Bonfiglio v. State, 57 So. 3d 990, 991 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); M.N. v. State, 16 So. 3d 280, 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (en banc). Affirmed. NORTHCUTT and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Leonard v. State, 760 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 2000)
- M.N. v. State, 16 So. 3d 280 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- White v. State, 661 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Keene v. Nudera, 661 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)