KEON M. WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,

v.

THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 2016-06-08

No. 3D15-1189

Before SHEPHERD, LAGOA, and LOGUE, JJ.

194 So. 3d 511 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2016) Positive Treatment

Cited by 3 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

Appellant Williams sought belated appellate review of a trial court's order denying his motion to suppress identification evidence. Because Williams failed to expressly reserve his right to appeal the suppression ruling when entering a global plea, and the trial court did not find the suppression motion dispositive, the appellate court affirmed the denial.

Holding

The appellate court affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress because Williams failed to expressly reserve the right to appeal as required by the governing rules and statutes, and the trial court did not find the motion dispositive.

Headnotes

[1] A defendant must expressly reserve the right to appeal the denial of a motion to suppress when entering a global plea to preserve that right.

[2] A belated appeal granted for the limited purpose of reviewing a motion to suppress denial does not permit enlargement of the issues raised in the appellate brief.

Previewing 2 of 3 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

“Appellant failed to expressly reserve the right to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress”
Establishes that failure to expressly reserve appeal rights prevents appellate review of suppression rulings

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

Williams was charged in multiple cases and sought a belated appeal limited to challenging the denial of his motion to suppress identification. After t…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Topics

Motion To Suppress Identification Dispositive Motion Reservation Of Right To Appeal Collateral Relief

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion To Suppress Identification cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

LOGUE, J.

Appellant sought and was granted a belated appeal for the limited purpose of seeking review of the trial court’s order denying his motion to suppress identification. Following the denial of the motion to suppress, defendant entered a global plea to resolve this case as well as other cases. In .entering the plea, however, and contrary to the clear requirement of the governing rules and statutes, Appellant failed to expressly reserve the right to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress. Further, the trial court did not find that the motion to suppress identification would have been dispositive of the case. Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A)(i); § 924.06(3), Fla. Stat (2015).1 In these circumstances, the Supreme Court has instructed, “the district courts should affirm summarily utilizing the procedure set forth in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a).” Leonard v. State, 760 So.2d 114, 119 (Fla.2000).

Affirmed.

. Although Appellant’s petition for belated appeal was limited to seeking review of the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress identification, he enlarged the scope of his brief and issues raised therein, well beyond the limited nature of his petition for belated appeal and our order granting same. We dismiss those portions of the appeal and, with one exception, express no opinion on whether Appellant may seek collateral relief on those claims. The one exception is Appellant's claim that the trial court erroneously sentenced Appellant on a violation of probation in lower case number F12-669, contending that his probation in that case had expired by the time the affidavit of violation was filed. The trial court has already granted relief in that regard, having entered an Amended Order Granting in Part Defendant’s Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence, Case nos. F10-19592, F12-669 (Fla. 11th Cir. Jan. 15, 2016).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

Aybar v. State, 207 So. 3d 340 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)

…e dis-positive, nor is there a stipulation in the record that the ruling would be dispositive. Consequently, this Court has no jurisdiction to review the matter, and the appeal is dismissed. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A)(i)1; Williams v. State, 194 So. 3d 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016); Pena v. State, 913 So. 2d 1203, 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (stating “[b]ecause we have concluded that the order on appeal was not dis-positive and the exception to the rule does not apply, we have no jurisdiction to reach the merit…
Heredia v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)

…pressly reserve the right to appeal the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss, we affirm without prejudice to any right Heredia may have to file a post-conviction motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Williams v. State, 194 So. 3d 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). Affirmed.…

Authorities Cited

Leonard v. State, 760 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 2000)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw

KEON M. WILLIAMS, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

KEON M. WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,

v.

THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE