NUGENT
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.
A defendant who enters a no contest plea without expressly reserving the right to appeal a dispositive issue in both the written plea agreement and oral plea colloquy forfeits the right to direct appeal of that issue, even if counsel sought a finding of dispositiveness.
[1] A defendant who pleads guilty or nolo contendere must expressly reserve the right to appeal a dispositive issue both in the written plea agreement and during the oral ple…
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.”
Citing § 924.06(3), Fla. Stat. (2024), explaining the statutory requirement for appellate review of dispositive issues after a no contest plea.
Aaron Nugent entered a negotiated no contest plea to misdemeanor violation of license restriction and was sentenced to fifteen days' county jail as el…
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 Plea Colloquy Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
AARON NUGENT,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
No. 2D2024-0613
May 7, 2025
Appeal from the County Court for Pinellas County; Theodora C. Komninos, Judge.
Jeremy Clark and Tyler Vaughn of Clark|Hartpence Law, St. Petersburg, for Appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allison C. Heim, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
SLEET, Chief Judge.
Aaron Nugent appeals from his judgment and sentence for misdemeanor violation of license restriction. He entered a negotiated no contest plea to the charge, and the county court sentenced him pursuant to agreement to fifteen days' county jail to be served as electronic monitoring. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in denying
Although defense counsel sought a ruling of dispositiveness, the case law indicates that such is not enough to satisfy the reservation requirement. See Pamphile v. State, 65 So. 3d 107, 108 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) ("[W]ithout both an express reservation of the right to appeal and a finding that the issue is dispositive, . . . a defendant who pleads guilty or nolo contendere has no right to a direct appeal."); Hawk v. State, 848 So. 2d 475, 477-78 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (concluding that "the plea form . . . not contain[ing] any reservation of Hawk's right to appeal and his oral plea [being] entered without such a reservation" was "insurmountable" and precluded relief despite defense counsel having asked the trial court to make a finding that the denial of his motion to suppress was dispositive); see also Lewis v. State, 262 So. 3d 859, 861 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (concluding the statute and rule were not satisfied where although "[t]he parties stipulated that Appellant's motion to suppress was dispositive[,] . . . nothing in the record reflects Appellant's express reservation of his right to appeal the dispositive issue"); Clough v. State, 139 So. 3d 312, *1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (table decision) (affirming where "the written plea agreement signed by appellant, defense counsel, and
Accordingly, we must affirm. See Leonard v. State, 760 So. 2d 114, 119 (Fla. 2000). However, we do so without prejudice to any right Nugent may have to file a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion. See Pamphile, 65 So. 3d at 109 (citing Howard v. State, 824 So. 2d 1015, 1016 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), for the proposition that "filing a rule 3.850 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel is the appropriate remedy for a defendant whose attorney advised him or her to plead . . . without reserving the right to appeal").
Affirmed. SILBERMAN and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Leonard v. State, 760 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 2000)
- Fritz Pamphile v. State, 65 So. 3d 107 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
- Lewis v. State, 262 So. 3d 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)