ARTHUR EHRHARDT
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 nolo contendere plea without contemporaneously reserving an issue or moving to withdraw the plea may not raise other matters on direct appeal.
[1] A defendant who enters a nolo contendere plea must either contemporaneously reserve an issue at the plea hearing or move to withdraw the plea in order to raise matters on…
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“any other matters raised on appeal 'must be preserved by a motion to withdraw a plea before [those matters] may be raised on direct appeal.'”
Court's statement of the law regarding preservation of issues following a nolo contendere plea
Arthur Ehrhardt entered a plea of nolo contendere to false imprisonment and was sentenced to twenty-four months' probation. The record does not indica…
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 Motion To Withdraw Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Arthur Ehrhardt appeals his plea of nolo contendere to false imprisonment and sentence to twenty-four months’ probation. The record does not indicate Ehrhardt ever attempted to withdraw his plea, nor does the transcript of his plea hearing suggest Ehrhardt preserved his right to appeal in any way. Without any contemporaneously reserved issue or a preserved direct appeal under one of the four exceptions described in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b)(2)(A)(ii)a.–d., any other matters raised on appeal “must be preserved by a motion to withdraw a plea before [those matters] may be raised on direct appeal.” Harriel v. State, 710 So. 2d 102, 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
Ehrhardt neither reserved the right to appeal by contemporaneously preserving an issue nor moved to withdraw the entry of his no contest plea. Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a), which allows summary affirmance where an appellant fails to demonstrate any basis for reversal after appealing under Rule 9.140. See Leonard v. State, 760 So. 2d 114, 119 (Fla. 2000) (requiring district courts summarily affirm, rather than dismiss, frivolous appeals after entry of a
2
nolo contendere plea). See also Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A)(i)–(ii); Fla. R. App. P. 9.135(a). Affirmed. KLINGENSMITH, C.J., GROSS and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Leonard v. State, 760 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 2000)
- Dameion Harriel v. State, 710 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)