Boddie v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Boddie v. State

328 So. 2d 877, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 13998

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 20, 1976

DocketNo. Z-99

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 328 So. 2d 877 (Boddie v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Boddie v. State, 328 So. 2d 877, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 13998 (Fla. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, defendant in the trial court, was charged by information with possession of heroin. A defense motion to suppress the evidence was denied whereupon defendant entered a plea of nolo contend-ere. From the resulting judgment and sentence this appeal is taken.

Nothing in the record on appeal indicates that the plea of nolo contendere was entered with any reservation of the right to appeal. (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 pleadings 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 and Farrell v. State, Fla.App. 1st, 1975, 317 So.2d 142).

[878]*878On December 10, 1975 appellant filed a motion for an extension of time “to allow the court reporter to transcribe proceedings which were not included in the original directions to the clerk, but are necessary for fair determination of the issues herein.” That motion was granted. A supplemental record has been filed but it too fails to reveal that the plea of nolo contendere was entered with any reservation of the right to appeal. The record does not reveal any attempt to supplement the record by stipulation between the parties as to whether or not there was any such reservation. Neither does there even appear in the record any affidavit of his attorney (see Beverly v. State, Fla.App. 1st, 1975, 322 So.2d 597).

Accordingly, of the Court’s own motion, appellant is allowed to and until March 1, 1976, within which to file a supplemental record reflecting that his plea of nolo contendere was in fact conditioned on a reservation of right to appeal, failing so to do this Court will have no alternative but to affirm the judgment and sentence.

BOYER, C. J. and RAWLS and Mc-CORD, JJ., concur.

Order of Affirmance

Appellant having failed to file supplemental record as permitted by this Court’s per curiam opinion of February 20, 1976 and it appearing that the record fails to reflect that the appellant’s plea of nolo contendere was entered with any reservation of right to appeal any point of law, the judgment and sentence giving rise to this appeal are

AFFIRMED.

BOYER, C. J., and RAWLS and Mc-CORD, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, defendant in the trial court, was charged by information with possession of heroin. A defense motion to suppress the evidence was denied whereupon defendant entered a plea of nolo contend-ere. From the resulting judgment and sentence this appeal is taken.

Nothing in the record on appeal indicates that the plea of nolo contendere was entered with any reservation of the right to appeal. (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 pleadings 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 and Farrell v. State, Fla.App. 1st, 1975, 317 So.2d 142).

[878]*878On December 10, 1975 appellant filed a motion for an extension of time “to allow the court reporter to transcribe proceedings which were not included in the original directions to the clerk, but are necessary for fair determination of the issues herein.” That motion was granted. A supplemental record has been filed but it too fails to reveal that the plea of nolo contendere was entered with any reservation of the right to appeal. The record does not reveal any attempt to supplement the record by stipulation between the parties as to whether or not there was any such reservation. Neither does there even appear in the record any affidavit of his attorney (see Beverly v. State, Fla.App. 1st, 1975, 322 So.2d 597).

Accordingly, of the Court’s own motion, appellant is allowed to and until March 1, 1976, within which to file a supplemental record reflecting that his plea of nolo contendere was in fact conditioned on a reservation of right to appeal, failing so to do this Court will have no alternative but to affirm the judgment and sentence.

BOYER, C. J. and RAWLS and Mc-CORD, JJ., concur.

Order of Affirmance

Appellant having failed to file supplemental record as permitted by this Court’s per curiam opinion of February 20, 1976 and it appearing that the record fails to reflect that the appellant’s plea of nolo contendere was entered with any reservation of right to appeal any point of law, the judgment and sentence giving rise to this appeal are

AFFIRMED.

BOYER, C. J., and RAWLS and Mc-CORD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

328 So. 2d 877, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 13998, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boddie-v-state-fladistctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack