EDWARD LEWIS
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Appellant challenged the trial court's denial of a motion to suppress methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia found during a vehicle search, arguing the stop was illegal and the search lacked probable cause or warrant. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Appellant pleaded no contest without expressly reserving the right to appeal the dispositive motion to suppress.
An appellant who pleads no contest without expressly reserving the right to appeal a legally dispositive issue has no right to a direct appeal. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Appellant failed to expressly reserve the right to appeal the dispositive motion to suppress, despite the parties' stipulation that the motion was dispositive.
[1] A defendant who pleads guilty or nolo contendere must expressly reserve the right to appeal a dispositive issue; a stipulation by the parties that an issue is dispositive…
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 intelligence“A defendant who pleads . . . nolo contendere with no express reservation of the right to appeal a legally dispositive issue shall have no right to a direct appeal.”
Court citing Fla. Stat. § 924.06(3) establishing the statutory requirement for express reservation
Appellant was charged with possession of various controlled substances. He filed a motion to suppress evidence, which the parties stipulated was dispo…
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
December 31, 2018 B.L. THOMAS, C.J. Appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of his dispositive motion to suppress methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia found during a search. Because Appellant pled no contest without expressly reserving the right to appeal the ruling on his motion, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Appellant was charged by information with possession of hydrocodone, possession of cocaine, possession of cannabis less than 20 grams, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Appellant pled no contest to all counts and was sentenced to 24 months’ probation on the hydrocodone and cocaine possession counts, and 12 months’ probation on the marijuana and paraphernalia counts, with all sentences to run concurrently. Less than nine months after Appellant was sentenced, the State filed an affidavit alleging that Appellant had violated the terms of his probation by committing a new law offense of amphetamine trafficking and drug equipment possession.
Appellant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the alleged methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia were seized as a result of an illegal stop, and any tangible evidence seized was done so without warrant or probable cause. The parties agreed that the motion to suppress was dispositive. At a hearing on the motion, the trial court admitted into evidence two DVDs and one CD, which the State asserted contained a video of Appellant traveling through a stop sign without fully stopping, and an audio of an Escambia County Sheriff’s deputy informing Appellant that an odor of marijuana was coming from his vehicle. Following the stop, deputies searched Appellant’s vehicle and found approximately 47 grams of methamphetamine. The trial court found that the deputies had probable cause to stop Appellant, and denied his motion to suppress.
Appellant pled no contest to violation of probation, no contest to the new offense of possession of drug paraphernalia, and no contest to the lesser included offense of possession of methamphetamine, more than 14 grams but less than 28 grams. Appellant signed a plea form, which indicated that Appellant waived, inter alia, his right to appeal all matters, including the issue of guilt or innocence. The plea form contained no indication that Appellant was expressly reserving his right to appeal the dispositive motion to suppress, nor did Appellant expressly reserve the right to appeal the trial court’s ruling on the dispositive motion at the hearing.
Generally, defendants may not directly appeal a ruling after pleading guilty or nolo contendere. § 924.06(3), Fla. Stat. (2016) (“A defendant who pleads . . . nolo contendere with no express reservation of the right to appeal a legally dispositive issue[]shall have no right to a direct appeal.”); Grimes v. State, 208 So. 3d 323, 324 n.1 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (“‘[W]ithout both an express reservation of the right to appeal and a finding that the issue is dispositive, through either a trial court's ruling or a stipulation by the state, a defendant who pleads guilty or nolo contendere has no right to a direct appeal.’”) (emphasis removed) (quoting Pamphile v. State, 65 So. 3d 107, 108 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)); Hawk
v. State, 848 So. 2d 475, 478-79 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A)(i) (“A defendant who pleads guilty or nolo contendere may expressly reserve the right to appeal a prior dispositive order of the lower tribunal, identifying with particularity the point of law being reserved.” (emphasis added)).
The parties stipulated that Appellant’s motion to suppress was dispositive; however, nothing in the record reflects Appellant’s express reservation of his right to appeal the dispositive issue. We therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
DISMISSED.
MAKAR and WINSOR, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________ Andy Thomas, Public Defender, Lori A. Willner, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Frank Xavier Moehrle, Jr. and Amanda D. Stokes, Assistant Attorneys General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Milliron v. State, 274 So. 3d 1173 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)
-
Wesley v. Aramis D. Ayala (9th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2018)
-
Nugent v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2025)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hawk v. State, 848 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Fritz Pamphile v. State, 65 So. 3d 107 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
- Michael v. Grimes, 208 So. 3d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)