DAMANTA JAMAR MURPHY, 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.
Damanta Murphy appeals his conviction and sentence following a no contest plea to felony charges, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress statements to police. The court affirms the conviction but expresses concern that the trial court's erroneous assurances that Murphy could reserve appellate rights to the suppression issue may have rendered the plea involuntary, directing attention to potential collateral relief.
The court affirms the conviction and sentence because Murphy failed to obtain the State's stipulation and court's determination that the suppression motion was dispositive as required by appellate rules, and it is now too late to file a motion to withdraw the plea. However, the court expresses concern that the mistaken assurances regarding appellate reservation may have rendered the plea involuntary.
[1] A defendant's reservation of the right to appeal a motion to suppress is ineffective if the motion was not legally dispositive and the defendant did not move to withdraw…
[2] A plea entered with mistaken assurances from counsel and the court regarding the ability to appeal a suppression issue may call into question the voluntary and intelligen…
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“the mistaken assurances of defense counsel and the trial court that Mr. Murphy's plea reserved his ability to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress bring into question the "voluntary and intelligent" nature of Appellant's plea”
Establishes the court's concern that erroneous trial court assurances may have compromised the voluntariness of the plea despite affirmance
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMurphy entered a no contest plea to numerous felony charges after the circuit court denied his motion to suppress written and oral statements to polic…
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 Reservation Of Right To Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
Damanta Murphy appeals his judgment and sentence, entered after the circuit court’s denial of his motion to suppress and his subsequent plea of no contest to numerous felony charges. During the plea hearing, defense counsel stated that Mr. Murphy entered the plea with the reservation of his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress written and oral statements to the police. The circuit court acknowledged the reservation and the written plea agreement contained the notation “[rjeserve the right to appeal the issue of suppression.”- However, the State never stipulated, and the court never made a determination, that the motion to suppress was legally dispositive as contemplated under rule 3.170(£), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure and rule 9.140(b)(2)(A)(i), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. See also § 924.051(4), Fla. Stat. No motion to withdraw the plea, pursuant to rule 3.170(Z), is contained in the record.
Under these circumstances and upon the record before us, we are constrained to affirm the conviction and sentence; Leonard v. State, 760 So.2d 114 (Fla.2000). However, the mistaken assurances of defense counsel and the trial court that Mr. Murphy’s plea reserved his ability to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress bring into question the “voluntary and intelligent” nature of Appellant’s plea. See Holden v. State, 90 So.3d 902, 904 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (Benton, C.J., concurring).
At this point in time, it is too late for Mr. Murphy to file a motion to withdraw his plea pursuant to rule 3.170(í) and 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 on remand, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 contemplates collateral relief from convictions predicated on pleas that are not voluntary and intelligent. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(a)(1) and (5).” See also Holden, 90 So.3d at 904 (Benton, C.J., concurring). Appointment of counsel to assist Mr. Murphy in determining whether pursuit of such collateral relief is in his best interest would be appropriate upon his motion requesting such appointment.
The judgment and sentence are affirmed.
VAN NORTWICK and SWANSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Renwick L. Keel v. State, 174 So. 3d 1114 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Murphy v. State, 149 So. 3d 1163, 1164 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). BENTON, ROWE, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.…
-
Jamerson v. State, 291 So. 3d 638 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)…). Thus, the State could have proven the charges without Jamerson’s un-Mirandized statements. Under these circumstances, we are obliged to affirm the convictions and sentences. See Leonard v. State, 760 So. 2d 114, 129 (Fla. 2000); Murphy v. State, 149 So. 3d 1163, 1164 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). However, we recognize that the trial court affirmatively, but unintentionally, misled Jamerson into believing he could appeal the denial of his motion to suppress following his nolo contendere plea. The trial court’s erron…1 / 3
-
Hicks v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Leonard v. State, 760 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 2000)
- Renard Nealie Williams v. State, 134 So. 3d 975 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Dannie Stanford Holden, Jr. v. State, 90 So. 3d 902 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Bonfiglio v. State, 57 So. 3d 990 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)