GARY LEO ARENA, JR.
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 pleads nolo contendere may only appeal prior dispositive orders of the lower tribunal if the right to appeal is expressly reserved with particularity.
[1] A trial court's denial of a special jury instruction request is not a dispositive order and therefore cannot be appealed by a defendant who has pleaded nolo contendere un…
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 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.”
Court's statement of the applicable rule from Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b)(2)(A)(i)
Gary Leo Arena, Jr. appealed from a nolo contendere plea in a criminal case. He challenged the trial court's denial of his request for a special jury …
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 Order cases and more on FLexlaw
WOZNIAK, J.
In this appeal from a nolo contendere plea, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction that portion of the appeal challenging the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s request for a special jury instruction because it is not dispositive. 1 See 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
1
This case was transferred from the Fifth District Court of Appeal to this Court on January 1, 2023. with particularity the point of law being reserved.” (emphasis added)). We affirm without comment the other issues raised on appeal. DISMISSED IN PART AND AFFIRMED IN PART. MIZE and GANNAM, JJ., concur.
Jonah Dickstein, of Dickstein Law, Tampa, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kaylee D. Tatman, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
2