Marion v. State

913 So. 2d 1243, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 17665, 2005 WL 2990490
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Marion v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 11040
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 9, 2005·No. No. 4D04-1093·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Appellant failed to preserve the issue of the denial of the motion to suppress, because no reservation of the right to appeal was made as to this issue. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A)(i). While appellant’s lawyer said at sentencing that, “He is going to reserve his right to ap[1244]*1244peal,” the court’s response indicates that the court believed that the right to appeal was directed to the sentence, and no reservation of right to appeal was made in the written plea agreement. To reserve the right to appeal a dispositive issue, the issue must be identified with particularity on the point of law being reserved. ' As this was not done, the appellánt failed to preserve his right to appeal the issue raised in his brief.

WARNER, KLEIN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

Marion v. State, 913 So. 2d 1243, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 17665, 2005 WL 2990490 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

913 So. 2d 1243 (Marion v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.