JOSEPH DONALD WASIL, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
The court initially affirmed a conviction based on a nolo contendere plea, but upon reviewing a supplemented record showing a reservation of appeal rights, granted rehearing and affirmed again, finding no error in the denial of the motion to suppress evidence.
The court granted rehearing and affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress, finding ample support for the warrantless search.
Appellant pleaded nolo contendere after his motion to suppress evidence was denied. Initially, the appellate court affirmed without considering the me…
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 Reservation Of Right To Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, defendant in the trial court, was charged by information with possession of a controlled substance (marijuana) and with possession of narcotics paraphernalia. A defense motion to suppress the evidence was denied whereupon defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere. He was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to three-years probation from whence he now appeals.
In the statement of the case contained in appellant’s brief it is stated that “The plea of nolo contendere was entered with appropriate reservation of the right to appeal the court’s failure to suppress the evidence.” There is no reference there nor elsewhere in the brief to any portion of the record-on-appeal to inform us where in the record we might find support for that statement. We have nevertheless carefully examined the entire record and find no such reservation. (See State v. Ashby, Sup.Ct.Fla.1971, 245 So. 2d 225; Rule 3.6, subd. b. FAR and Rule 3.7, subd. f(3) FAR)
A nolo contendere plea admits all facts which are well pleaded and waives all formal defects in the proceeding of which the accused could have availed himself by a plea of not guilty or motion to quash. (Peel v. State, Fla.App. 2nd 1963, 150 So. 2d 281; Farrell v. State, and Raulerson v. State, Fla.App. 1st 1975, 317 So. 2d 142).
Finding that the record fails to reveal a reservation for appellate review (Farrell v. State, supra and Raulerson v. State, supra) the judgment and sentence appealed are
Affirmed.
RAWLS, C. J., and BOYER and Mc-CORD, JJ., concur.
By per curiam opinion dated June 2, 1975 this Court affirmed the trial court as the record failed to reveal that appellant’s plea of nolo contendere was entered with an appropriate reservation of right to appeal the trial court’s failure to suppress evidence. Appellant has subsequently filed a motion for permission to supplement the record, accompanied by a petition for rehearing, alleging that as a result of clerical error there was omitted from the record-on-appeal that portion of the transcript of the proceedings in the trial court reflecting that the appellant’s nolo contendere plea was conditioned on reservation of right to appeal. Upon granting the motion for permission to supplement the record we find that the right to appeal was appropriately reserved. Accordingly, we grant the petition for rehearing and consider the case on its merits.
Having carefully examined the record-on-appeal, as supplemented, and the briefs filed by able counsel, we fail to find that appellant has demonstrated error in the trial court. On the contrary, we find ample support for the warrantless search giving rise to the motion to suppress, the denial of which is the basis of this appeal. We, accordingly,
Affirm.
BOYER, C. J., and RAWLS and McCORD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Willis v. Wainwright, 375 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…there was absolutely no reservation of the right to appeal the denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss. This absence of a reservation constitutes a waiver pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.172(c)(iv) and the cases construing this rule. Wasil v. State, 318 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). Section 924.06(3) Fla.Stat. (1977) provides that in such situations the defendant shall obtain review by means of collateral attack. The petition for writ of habeas corpus for delayed appellate review is denied because the docu…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Ashby, 245 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1971)
- Peel v. State, 150 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Farrell v. State, 317 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)