Ferran v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ferran v. State

210 So. 3d 97, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 13262

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 2, 2016

Docket2D15-3764

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 210 So. 3d 97 (Ferran 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

Ferran v. State, 210 So. 3d 97, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 13262 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Stephen Matthew Ferran pleaded guilty to two counts of burglary of a conveyance and one count of possession of burglary tools. He now challenges the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence. However, although the parties appear to have agreed that the issue was preserved for appeal, there was neither a stipulation nor a determination by the trial court that the denial of the motion to suppress was dis-positive. We therefore affirm without further comment. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A)(i); Leonard v. State, 760 So.2d 114, 119 (Fla.2000); M.N. v. State, 16 So.3d 280, 281 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).

Because it appears to us that Mr. Fer-ran may have believed that his plea was conditioned upon the reservation of his right to appeal from the denial of his motion to suppress, our affirmance is without prejudice to Mr. Ferran’s right to file a timely motion to withdraw his plea pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Sears v. State, 920 So.2d 709, 709 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Sloss v. State, 917 So.2d 941, 942 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

Affirmed.

WALLACE, BLACK, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Stephen Matthew Ferran pleaded guilty to two counts of burglary of a conveyance and one count of possession of burglary tools. He now challenges the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence. However, although the parties appear to have agreed that the issue was preserved for appeal, there was neither a stipulation nor a determination by the trial court that the denial of the motion to suppress was dis-positive. We therefore affirm without further comment. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A)(i); Leonard v. State, 760 So.2d 114, 119 (Fla.2000); M.N. v. State, 16 So.3d 280, 281 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).

Because it appears to us that Mr. Fer-ran may have believed that his plea was conditioned upon the reservation of his right to appeal from the denial of his motion to suppress, our affirmance is without prejudice to Mr. Ferran’s right to file a timely motion to withdraw his plea pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Sears v. State, 920 So.2d 709, 709 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Sloss v. State, 917 So.2d 941, 942 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

Affirmed.

WALLACE, BLACK, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 So. 3d 97, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 13262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ferran-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack