BILL HAND, 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.
Bill Hand was charged with delivering phencyclidine under a statute prohibiting barbiturates, a substance not specifically listed as illegal at the time. The Florida Supreme Court dismissed his appeal because his plea of no contest without reserving appellate rights barred him from challenging anything other than the facial sufficiency of the charging instrument.
A plea of no contest without reservation of appellate rights bars appeal of any issue other than the facial sufficiency of the charging instrument. The question of whether phencyclidine is a barbiturate is a factual question that Hand waived by entering the plea of no contest. The district court's discussion of the constitutional validity of the statute was improper and is held for naught.
[1] A plea of no contest bars an appeal of any issue other than the facial sufficiency of the charging instrument, unless the defendant reserves the right to appeal a questio…
[2] A defendant's argument that a substance is not a proscribed substance under a statute, which was not previously decided, cannot be considered on appeal after a no contest…
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“Except where a criminal defendant reserves the right to appeal a question of law in accordance with our decision in State v. Ashby, 245 So.2d 225 (Fla.1971), a plea of no contest (or nolo contendere) bars the appeal of any issue other than the facial sufficiency of the charging instrument.”
Establishes the foundational rule that a no contest plea without reservation limits appellate review to facial sufficiency of the charging instrument.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBill Hand admitted to delivering phencyclidine. At the time of delivery, phencyclidine was not specifically listed as an illegal drug but arguably fel…
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 Appeal From Denial Of Motion To Dismiss cases and more on FLexlaw
ENGLAND, Justice.
This case is before us on direct appeal from a decision of the Second District Court of Appeal reported at 306 So. 2d 591 which initially upheld the constitutional validity of Section 404.02, Fla.Stat. (1971). Bill Hand was charged by criminal information with the delivery of “a barbiturate, to-wit: phencyclidine, in violation of Section 404.02”. At the time of the admitted delivery, phencyclidine was not specifically listed as an illegal drug, but was arguably within the statutory definition of “barbiturate.”1 Hand moved to dismiss the information for failure to state a crime, which motion was denied. He then entered a plea of no contest without reserving the right to appeal. An appeal was nonetheless taken to the district court asserting that the information did not charge a crime, it being argued that this Court had held phencyclidine was not a proscribed substance in both State v. Camil, 279 So. 2d 832 (Fla.1973), and State v. Hoagland, 272 So. 2d 478 (Fla.1973). The district court held that these decisions did not determine whether phencyclidine was a “barbiturate” at the time of the admitted delivery, and “that the definition of barbiturate . . . into which phencyclidine may fall” is not unconstitutionally vague. Hand then filed an appeal here, asserting that the district court initially and directly construed a constitutional provision, namely the due process clause.
Except where a criminal defendant reserves the right to appeal a question of law in accordance with our decision in State v. Ashby, 245 So. 2d 225 (Fla.1971), a plea of no contest (or nolo contendere) bars the appeal of any issue other than the facial sufficiency of the charging instrument. Peel v. State, 150 So. 2d 281 (Fla.App.2d 1963), appeal dismissed, 168 So. 2d 147 (Fla.1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 986, 85 S.Ct. 1359, 14 L.Ed.2d 279 (1965). Whether phencyclidine is or is not a barbiturate is a question of fact, and by entering the plea of no contest Hand relieved the state of its burden to prove that it was. Hand’s argument here that phencyclidine is not a barbiturate, which was not passed on in either Camil or Hoagland, cannot now be considered.
Since it was improper for the district court to address any issue raised by Hand other than the facial validity of the information, that portion of the district court’s opinion discussing the constitutional validity of Section 404.02, Fla.Stat. (1971), “is hereby held for naught”2 and this appeal is dismissed.
OVERTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ADKINS, BOYD, SUNDBERG and HATCHETT, JJ., concur. . The drug phencyclidine is now specifically listed in the Florida Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, Section 893.03(3) (a), Fla.Stat. (1975).
. De Jong v. Pallotto, 239 So. 2d 252 (Fla.1970); P.C. Lissenden Co. v. Board of County Commissioners, 116 So. 2d 632 (Fla.1959).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Gissendanner v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1979)…ccordingly, the judgment entered below is affirmed. It is so ordered. BOYD, OVERTON, SUNDBERG and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur. ADKINS, J., dissents. . We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(1), Florida Constitution. . Hand v. State, 334 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1976). See also, Vinson v. State, 345 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 1977). . State v. Ashby, 245 So. 2d 225 (Fla.1971). . As demonstrated by appellant’s brief, these terms may be readily understood by reference to a dictionary.…
-
Martinez v. State, 368 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 1978)…f nolo contendere bars the appeal of any issue other than the facial sufficiency of the charging instrument, except where a criminal defendant reserves the right to appeal a question of law. Vinson v. State, 345 So. 2d 711 (Fla.1977); Hand v. State, 334 So. 2d 601 (Fla.1976); and State v. Ashby, 245 So. 2d 225 (Fla.1971). Questions of fact cannot be reserved. Since the giving of a jury instruction involves issues of law and fact, and depends in part upon the evidence presented, we hold that a trial court’s ru…
-
Bell v. State, 369 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1979)…y pre-trial motions. Entrapment ordinarily is a jury question. E. g., Carter v. State, 155 So. 2d 787, 789 (Fla. 1963). By changing their pleas to no contest, the appellants relieved the state of its burden of proving factual matters. Hand v. State, 334 So. 2d 601 (Fla.1976); Chesebrough v. State, 255 So. 2d 675 (Fla.1971). They also gave up any chance they might have had to present the entrapment defense to the jury. Thus it would seem that the appellants may show error in the court below only by establishin…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- State v. Ashby, 245 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1971)
- Peel v. State, 150 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- P. C. Lissenden Co., Inc. v. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF Palm Beach Cnty., 116 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 1959)
- McPEEK v. Wainwright, 168 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 1964)
- Peel v. State, 168 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 1964)
- State v. Camil, 279 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 1973)
- Fair v. Fair, 380 U.S. 986 (U.S. 1965)
- de Jong v. Pallotto, 239 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 1970)
- Morphew v. Indiana, 380 U.S. 986 (U.S. 1965)
- State v. Hoagland, 272 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 1973)