SAMUEL DARDY, 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.
A convicted felon appealed a guilty plea conviction for possessing a firearm, claiming the trial court improperly excluded self-defense evidence. The appellate court held that a guilty plea abandons appellate review of evidentiary rulings, and separately ruled that self-defense is not a valid defense to the charge of firearm possession by a convicted felon.
A guilty plea waives review of most legal issues including evidentiary rulings unless the defendant challenges the trial court's jurisdiction, the plea's voluntariness, or the legality of the sentence. Additionally, self-defense is not a valid defense to the crime of firearm possession by a convicted felon.
[1] A guilty plea, unlike a nolo contendere plea, generally abandons all non-jurisdictional, non-voluntariness, and non-sentence legality issues for appeal.
[2] Self-defense is not a defense to the charge of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Although it has been held that an accused may enter a plea of nolo contendere and reserve questions of law for an appeal, such is not the case with regard to a guilty plea.”
Establishes that a guilty plea does not permit reservation of legal issues for appeal, unlike a nolo contendere plea.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSamuel Dardy, a convicted felon, was found in possession of a loaded shotgun on October 5, 1974. Prior to entering his guilty plea, the State establis…
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 Possession Of A Firearm By A Convicted Felon cases and more on FLexlaw
BOYER, Chief Judge.
Appellant, defendant in the trial court, was charged by information with the crime of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, contrary to Florida Statute 790.23. While his trial was still in progress he changed his plea, entering a plea of guilty to the offense as charged, but announced that he would appeal the trial court’s ruling on certain proffered testimony. He was adjudicated guilty and sentenced. From that judgment this appeal is taken.
At the trial, and prior to the guilty plea, the State proved that the defendant was in possession of a shotgun on October 5, 1974. The State also proved the defendant was a convicted felon. When the defense, on cross examination, attempted to establish why the defendant was in possession of the shotgun the State objected on the grounds of relevance. The defense then proffered testimony which tended to prove that on October S, 1974 one J. C. (Buckshot) Evans, a man with whom defendant had had a prior altercation, fired a weapon at defendant who was then unarmed. Upon being fired upon, defendant procured a shotgun from his car and fired back. In rejecting the proffered testimony, the trial court ruled that evidence of self defense was irrelevant to the charge of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. It was at that point that defendant withdrew his prior plea and entered a plea of guilty, advising the court that its ruling on the proffered testimony would be appealed.
Although it has been held that an accused may enter a plea of nolo contend-ere and reserve questions of law for an appeal, such is not the case with regard to a guilty plea. (State v. Ashby, Sup.Ct.Fla.1971, 245 So. 2d 225) Inasmuch as defendant does not question the jurisdiction of the trial court, the voluntariness of the plea nor the legality of the sentence, all other legal issues were legally abandoned by the guilty plea. However, even were we to reach the merits w^ would nevertheless be required under the evidence revealed by the record to affirm. Self defense is not a viable defense to the offense of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. (See Carter v. State, Fla.App. 1st 1975, 312 So. 2d 494; Johnson v. State, 1971, 256 Ind. 497, 269 N.E. 2d 879) Further, the evidence reveals that the defendant had been in possession of the loaded shotgun for an extended period of time prior to the incident giving rise to the charges against him.
Affirmed.
MILLS, J., and SACK, MARTIN, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hipolito Marrero v. State, 516 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…beforehand. The word "necessity” more accurately describes the defense to the possession charge, but it may carry some baggage associated with the duress defense. We prefer and will use the still more general term "justification." . Dardy v. State, 324 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Carter v. State, 312 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). Before Mungin, the Fourth District, in Nickerson v. State, 417 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), and Coleman v. State, 345 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), held that self-defens…
-
Mungin v. State, 458 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…or necessity and duress, was, under the unique circumstances presented by this case, permissible. The state urges that this court’s opinion conflicts with its prior opinions in Carter v. State, 312 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), and Dardy v. State, 324 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), and therefore rehearing en banc should be granted pursuant to the provisions of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.331. The full court has considered the motion for rehearing en banc and has granted it in part insofar as the…
-
Nickerson v. State, 417 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…d not involve possession of a firearm for purposes of self defense. Moreover, self defense is not a viable defense to the offense of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Coleman v. State, 345 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Dardy v. State, 324 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). Further supporting the trial court’s refusal to give the requested instruction is Thorpe v. State, 377 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). In Thorpe, the court held that the evidence supported a conviction for attempted possession o…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Ashby, 245 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1971)
- Kanouse v. Marietta L. Russell, 312 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Carter v. State, 312 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)