ROBERT EARL TILLER, 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 held that while marijuana seized from Tiller's vehicle should have been suppressed, his conviction will be affirmed because other marijuana was found and his prosecution was not predicated entirely on the illegally seized evidence.
[1] Marijuana seized from a wrecked vehicle during a search should be suppressed as evidence if the search was illegal.
[2] A conviction entered on a nolo contendere plea, reserving the right to appeal the denial of a motion to suppress, will be affirmed if other evidence exists to support the…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOfficers seized marijuana from Tiller's wrecked vehicle. Other marijuana was found at the wreck scene, inferentially possessed by Tiller before the wr…
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 Nolo Contendere Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We are bound to agree with Tiller’s assertion that the marijuana seized by officers in a search of Tiller’s wrecked vehicle should have been suppressed as evidence in his prosecution for possession of more than five grams of the substance. That, however, does not avail Tiller, who appeals from a judgment entered on his plea of nolo contendere, reserving only the right to assign error in the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress the marijuana found in his automobile.
The record also shows that other marijuana was found by officers at the wreck scene in circumstances permitting an inference that Tiller possessed it in the automobile before the wreck. Tiller made no motion to suppress the use of that material as evidence and the record contains no representation by the state which would permit us to find that Tiller’s prosecution was predicated entirely on the fruits of the illegal search. The conviction, entered on a plea which did not contest Tiller’s possession of the marijuana exceeding five grams, will be affirmed.
We are authorized to decide contested questions of law, such as the Fourth Amendment question presented here, when the trial court determines to accept a plea of nolo contendere from an accused who wishes to reserve appellate rights concerning that question of law. State v. Ashby, 245 So. 2d 225 (Fla.1971). This case demonstrates that the remedy of appeal cannot be afforded such an accused when the search and seizure question he seeks to reserve for appellate determination is not dispositive of the case. The record at the time of the tender of the plea of nolo con-tendere should show clearly that the state’s case against the accused cannot succeed without use of the evidence sought to be suppressed. Otherwise, appellate courts will be placed in the untenable position of rendering advisory opinions and the disposition of criminal cases will be unacceptably delayed.
AFFIRMED.
RAWLS, Acting C. J., and MILLS and SMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Brown v. State, 376 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 1979)…ve legal issue which had been reserved for appeal after an Ashby nolo plea. .While the defendants in Cox entered a conditional guilty plea rather than a conditional nolo plea, the rationale of that case is fully applicable here. . Tiller v. State, 330 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), does not stand for the proposition that a motion to suppress contraband is not a disposi-tive legal issue. In that case the police seized two separate caches of marijuana, one of which the defendant did not seek to suppress. Thu…
-
Taylor v. State, 355 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…to entertain the defendant’s subsequently filed appeal solely as to that issue because it was properly preserved in the trial court and a resolution thereof is dispositive of the case. State v. Ashby, 245 So. 2d 225, 228 (Fla.1971); Tiller v. State, 330 So. 2d 792, 793 (Fla.1st DCA 1976); Jackson v. State, 294 So. 2d 114 (Fla.4th DCA 1974). The central question presented for review is whether a free and voluntary consent to conduct a warrantless search of a boat may be obtained by a law enforcement officer f…
-
Morgan v. State, 486 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…eness is where the trial court has entered a pretrial order denying a motion to suppress drugs in a drug case. Such a ruling is dispositive if the state has no other evidence with which it can proceed to trial against the defendant. Tiller v. State, 330 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Although the attorneys purported to stipulate that the trial court’s rulings were dispositive, it is clear from our review of the transcript of the colloquy between the attorneys and the trial judge that an essential part of th…
Previewing 3 of 17 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)