RODNEY LEON RUSS, DOC #779516, 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.
Affirmed without further comment because the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress was not stipulated to or determined as dispositive, though the defendant may file a timely motion to withdraw his plea under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
A defendant cannot appeal the denial of a motion to suppress following a no contest plea unless there was a stipulation or determination that the denial was dispositive.
[1] A defendant cannot appeal the denial of a motion to suppress following a guilty or no contest plea unless the trial court stipulated to or determined that the denial was…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRodney Leon Russ entered a no contest plea to four felonies and two misdemeanors and then challenged the trial court's denial of his motion to suppres…
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 Issue cases and more on FLexlaw
Following the entry of a no contest plea to four felonies and two misdemeanors, Rodney Leon Russ now challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress the evidence. However, because “there was neither a stipulation nor a determination by the .trial court that the denial of the motion to suppress was dispositive,” we affirm without further comment. Ferran v. State, 210 So.3d 97, 97 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (per curiam); see also Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A)(i); Fla Stat. § 924.051(4) (2015); Leonard v. State, 760 So.2d 114, 119 (Fla. 2000) (holding that when the [district] court determines that an appeal does not present ... a legally dispositive issue that was expressly reserved for appellate review,” the district court should summarily affirm); Henderson v. State, 135 So.3d 1092, 1095 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (holding that where “there was no finding or agreement that the motion was disposi-tive, [the defendant] may not appeal the denial of the motion”).
Yet, because it appears that Mr. Russ “believed that his plea was conditioned upon the reservation of his right to appeal from the denial of his motion to suppress, oúr affirmance is without prejudice to [his] right to file a timely motion to withdraw his plea pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.” See Ferran, 210 So.3d at 97 (first citing Sears v. State, 920 So.2d 709, 709 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); and then citing Sloss v. State, 917 So.2d 941, 942 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)).
Affirmed.
WALLACE, KHOUZAM, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
T.F. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 274 So. 3d 485 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…PER CURIAM. [*486] Affirmed. See R.J. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 230 So. 3d 510, 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) ; A.M. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 223 So. 3d 312 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).…
-
Hicks v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Leonard v. State, 760 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 2000)
- Leoton R. Sears v. State, 920 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Torrey Lenard Sloss v. State, 917 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Little R. Henderson v. State, 135 So. 3d 1092 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)
- Ferran v. State, 210 So. 3d 97 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)
- Gammage v. State, 210 So. 3d 97 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)