C.L.M. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

C.L.M. v. State

752 So. 2d 67, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 1126, 2000 WL 146077

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 11, 2000

DocketNo. 5D99-2530

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 752 So. 2d 67 (C.L.M. 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

C.L.M. v. State, 752 So. 2d 67, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 1126, 2000 WL 146077 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

THOMPSON, J.

We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. C.L.M., a minor, entered nolo contendere pleas to possession of cannabis, trespass to a conveyance, and petit theft. Although C.L.M. reserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress a statement made to police after they read him his Miranda rights, he did not specify that the ruling was dispositive of the underlying case. To perfect his appeal, he must meet that requisite. The record shows neither that there was a stipulation that the denial of his motion was dispositive nor that the trial court made a specific finding. C.L.M. is precluded from appealing because he failed to show that the court’s ruling on the motion is dispositive of the underlying cause. See Gonzalez v. State, 739 So.2d 1260 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Teague v. State, 728 So.2d 1203 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).

DISMISSED.

DAUKSCH and PETERSON, JJ., concur.

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

THOMPSON, J.

We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. C.L.M., a minor, entered nolo contendere pleas to possession of cannabis, trespass to a conveyance, and petit theft. Although C.L.M. reserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress a statement made to police after they read him his Miranda rights, he did not specify that the ruling was dispositive of the underlying case. To perfect his appeal, he must meet that requisite. The record shows neither that there was a stipulation that the denial of his motion was dispositive nor that the trial court made a specific finding. C.L.M. is precluded from appealing because he failed to show that the court’s ruling on the motion is dispositive of the underlying cause. See Gonzalez v. State, 739 So.2d 1260 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Teague v. State, 728 So.2d 1203 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).

DISMISSED.

DAUKSCH and PETERSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

752 So. 2d 67, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 1126, 2000 WL 146077, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clm-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack