Scott v. State

913 So. 2d 1269, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 18007, 2005 WL 3051128
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Scott v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 872 So. 2d 1011
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 16, 2005·No. No. 4D04-4698·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Robinson v. State, 373 So.2d 898 (Fla.1979); Prince v. State, 885 So.2d 967, 968 (Fla. 4th D.CA 2004) (“Absent an express reservation of the right to appeal, a defendant may not appeal from a judgment entered pursuant to a nolo con-tendere plea.”).

However, we remand the case to the trial court with directions for it to re-enter, nunc pro tunc, the judgment and mitigated sentences it entered on December 3, 2004, after the appellant’s filing of his notice of appeal had divested the trial, court of jurisdiction.

FARMER, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur. ■

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

Scott v. State, 913 So. 2d 1269, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 18007, 2005 WL 3051128 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

913 So. 2d 1269 (Scott v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Prince v. State
885 So. 2d 967 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)