KENNETH OSBORNE
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.
Kenneth Osborne appeals his convictions for lewd and lascivious conduct and video voyeurism, challenging the denial of his motions to suppress evidence obtained from a search of his residence. Osborne pleaded nolo contendere but did not expressly reserve the right to appeal the suppression ruling, thereby forfeiting his appellate challenge to the trial court's denial of the motions.
Osborne forfeited his right to appeal the denial of his motions to suppress because he failed to expressly reserve that right either in the written plea agreement or during the plea colloquy, and the suppression motions were not stipulated or determined to be dispositive. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
[1] A defendant who pleads nolo contendere or guilty forfeits the right to appeal a trial court's ruling on pretrial motions unless the defendant expressly reserves the right…
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“If a defendant pleads nolo contendere without expressly reserving the right to appeal a legally dispositive issue, or if a defendant pleads guilty without expressly reserving the right to appeal a legally dispositive issue, the defendant may not appeal the judgment or sentence.”
Citation to Florida Statute § 924.051(4) explaining the statutory requirement for reserving appellate rights on guilty or nolo contendere pleas
Osborne sought to suppress video from a camera obtained during a search of his residence. The trial court denied the suppression motions, and Osborne …
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 Legally Dispositive Issue cases and more on FLexlaw
June 5, 2019 RAY, J.
In this direct appeal, Kenneth Osborne challenges his judgment and sentence for lewd and lascivious conduct and video voyeurism. Osborne pleaded no contest after he unsuccessfully sought to suppress video from a camera obtained during the search of his residence. The trial court adjudicated Osborne guilty on both counts and sentenced him to fifteen years in prison followed by five years of probation. Osborne now challenges the denial of his motions to suppress.
In general, a defendant who pleads guilty or nolo contendere forfeits the right to appeal the judgment entered on the plea. An exception exists when a defendant “expressly reserve[s] the right to appeal a prior dispositive order of the lower tribunal, identifying with particularity the point of law being reserved.” Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A)(i); see also § 924.051(4), Fla. Stat. (2016) (“If a defendant pleads nolo contendere without expressly reserving the right to appeal a legally dispositive issue, or if a defendant pleads guilty without expressly reserving the right to appeal a legally dispositive issue, the defendant may not appeal the judgment or sentence.”).
Here, Osborne failed to reserve the right to appeal the trial court’s ruling on the motions to suppress, either in the written plea agreement or during his plea colloquy. Further, the State did not stipulate, and the trial court did not determine, that the motions to suppress were dispositive.
Because Osborne gave up the right to challenge the denial of his motions to suppress, we affirm. See Leonard v. State, 760 So. 2d 114, 119 (Fla. 2000) (holding that a district court should summarily affirm “when the court determines that an appeal does not present ... a legally dispositive issue that was expressly reserved for appellate review”).
AFFIRMED.
B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and WINOKUR, J., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________ Bert Moore, Crestview, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Benjamin Louis Hoffman, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.