WENDY LYNNE DUNN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 2004-10-20
No. 2D03-2825
ALTENBERND, C.J, and WHATLEY and CANADY, JJ., Concur.
887 So. 2d 410 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2004)

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.

Synopsis

Wendy Dunn appeals her conviction for trafficking in amphetamine and possession of cannabis after entering a negotiated guilty plea. The appellate court affirms the judgment, finding no meritorious grounds for reversal under the Anders framework.


Holding

The appellate court affirms the judgment and sentences. Any potential error regarding the motion to suppress hearing on March 6, 2003, is not preserved for appellate review because the hearing transcript is not part of the record and the plea was negotiated without reserving appellate rights.


Headnotes

[1] A defendant who enters a negotiated plea of guilty without reserving the right to appeal and receives a legal sentence cannot appeal the judgment or sentence.

[2] An issue is not preserved for appellate review if a transcript of the hearing where the issue arose is unavailable.

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 intelligence

Key Quotes

“Because Ms. Dunn entered a negotiated plea to these charges without reserving the right to appeal any issues, because she received legal sentences based on the charges, and because she has not sought to withdraw her plea, Ms. Dunn's appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California”

Establishes the basis for applying the Anders framework and the procedural posture of the appeal

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Ms. Dunn entered a negotiated guilty plea to trafficking in amphetamine and possession of cannabis, receiving a sentence of 70.8 months' imprisonment—…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Wendy Dunn appeals a judgment for trafficking in amphetamine and possession of cannabis. Ms. Dunn entered a negotiated plea of guilty to the charges in exchange for a sentence of 70.8 months’ imprisonment, the minimum sentence required under the sentencing guidelines. Because Ms. Dunn entered a negotiated plea to these charges without reserving the right to appeal any issues, because she received legal sentences based on the charges, and because she has not sought to withdraw her plea, Ms. Dunn’s appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting that counsel cannot find a meritorious argument to support the reversal of the judgment or sentences. After a thorough review of the record, we agree.

Prior to entering her plea, Ms. Dunn filed a motion to suppress the amphetamine and cannabis that formed the basis for these charges. Ms. Dunn attached to the motion the deposition transcripts of the law enforcement officers involved in the search and seizure that produced these items. The trial court’s “docket inquiry” suggests that Ms. Dunn’s motion to suppress this evidence was either stricken or withdrawn at a hearing on March 6, 2003. We note that this court has been unable to obtain a transcript of that hearing. This court’s record, however, does include transcripts of both the plea hearing and the sentencing hearing. We conclude that any error that might theoretically have occurred at a hearing on March 6, 2003, is not preserved for this court’s review. See § 924.051(4), Fla. Stat. (2003); Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A).

Affirmed.

ALTENBERND, C.J, and WHATLEY and CANADY, JJ., Concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw