ROGER DENNIS CHURCHILL, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 2015-07-24
No. 5D14-1081
EVANDER, BERGER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.
169 So. 3d 1260 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2015) Negative Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Synopsis

Churchill appeals his conviction for methamphetamine manufacture and related charges after pleading no contest while reserving the right to challenge a pre-trial motion in limine ruling. The appellate court dismisses the appeal because the trial court's evidentiary ruling was not dispositive of the case, making it non-reviewable on direct appeal.


Holding

The court held that the trial court's ruling on the motion in limine was not dispositive and therefore cannot be challenged on direct appeal. A ruling is dispositive only if, regardless of whether the appellate court affirms or reverses it, there will be no trial of the case.


Headnotes

[1] A ruling on a pre-trial motion in limine is not dispositive and therefore cannot be challenged on direct appeal if the case could still proceed to trial regardless of the…

[2] An issue is legally 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.

Previewing 2 of 4 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

Key Quotes

“An issue is legally 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.”

Establishes the legal standard for when a trial court ruling can be reviewed on direct appeal

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Churchill was charged with one count of manufacture of methamphetamine, one count of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, and one count of posse…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Roger Dennis Churchill, Jr. appeals his judgment and sentence for one count of manufacture of methamphetamine, one count of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, and one count of possession of a listed chemical, entered after he pled no contest to the charges while reserving his right to appeal the trial court’s ruling on his pre-trial motion in limine.1 We *1261decline to address the issue. Because the trial court’s order was not dispositive,2 it cannot be challenged on direct appeal. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A)©; Garcia-Roque v. State, 120 So.3d 618 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (affirming defendant’s convictions and sentences without addressing lower court’s ruling on the motion in limine because such ruling was not dispositive). “An issue is legally 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.” Levine v. State, 788 So.2d 379, 380 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Zambuto v. State, 731 So.2d 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See Garcia-Roque, 120 So.2d at 619.

DISMISSED.

EVANDER, BERGER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Churchill v. State, 219 So. 3d 14 (Fla. 2017)
    …POLSTON, J.. Roger Dennis Churchill, Jr., seeks review of the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Churchill v. State, 169 So. 3d 1260 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015), on the ground that it expressly and directly conflicts with a decision of. the Third District Court of. Appeal in Finney v. State, 420 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (en banc), on a question of law. We have jurisdiction. See Art.…

Authorities Cited (11 total)

View all 11 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw