Rust v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rust v. State

742 So. 2d 471, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 12558, 1999 WL 770490

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 22, 1999

DocketNo. 98-00142

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 742 So. 2d 471 (Rust 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

Rust v. State, 742 So. 2d 471, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 12558, 1999 WL 770490 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this Anders¹ appeal, Ricky Lynn Rust seeks reversal of the denial of a motion to suppress. We have reviewed the hearing on the motion and agree that the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress. We write this opinion in order to remind trial judges of their responsibility to announce whether reserved issues are dispositive for purposes of appeal. See Everett v. State, 535 So.2d 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).

Here, Rust entered a plea of no contest and sought to preserve for appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. Misled by Rust’s court-appointed counsel and the assistant state attorney, the trial judge erroneously declined to determine if the motion to suppress was dispositive, deferring the matter to the appellate court.

Without a ruling from the trial court that the motion was dispositive, this appeal could be dismissed or remanded to the trial court for a ruling. However, because this case has been presented pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we have reviewed the entire record and for the purposes of judicial economy, conclude the motion to suppress was dispositive, and properly denied. Accordingly, we affirm.

BLUE, A.C.J., and FULMER and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this Anders¹ appeal, Ricky Lynn Rust seeks reversal of the denial of a motion to suppress. We have reviewed the hearing on the motion and agree that the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress. We write this opinion in order to remind trial judges of their responsibility to announce whether reserved issues are dispositive for purposes of appeal. See Everett v. State, 535 So.2d 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).

Here, Rust entered a plea of no contest and sought to preserve for appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. Misled by Rust’s court-appointed counsel and the assistant state attorney, the trial judge erroneously declined to determine if the motion to suppress was dispositive, deferring the matter to the appellate court.

Without a ruling from the trial court that the motion was dispositive, this appeal could be dismissed or remanded to the trial court for a ruling. However, because this case has been presented pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we have reviewed the entire record and for the purposes of judicial economy, conclude the motion to suppress was dispositive, and properly denied. Accordingly, we affirm.

BLUE, A.C.J., and FULMER and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

742 So. 2d 471, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 12558, 1999 WL 770490, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rust-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack