Sharpe v. State
589 So. 2d 964, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 11515, 1991 WL 240125
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 19, 1991·No. No. 91-1712·Published·Cited by 2 cases
Opinion
The denial of a motion to disclose the identity of a confidential informant, which was arguably sought to be preserved for appellate review by the appellant’s nolo plea, is not a dispositive order. The appeal is therefore dismissed, Roob v. State, 572 So.2d 1022 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), without prejudice to an application for withdrawal of the plea. Roob, 572 So.2d at 1023; cf. Gibson v. State, 386 So.2d 588 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (plea ordered withdrawn when, unlike this case, it was clear all parties relied on appealability of order).
Appeal dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Sharpe v. State, 589 So. 2d 964, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 11515, 1991 WL 240125 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).
589 So. 2d 964 (Sharpe v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Werner v. State
828 So. 2d 499 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
Seabrook v. State
620 So. 2d 227 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)