CARLISLE v. STATE (1997)

District Court of Appeal of Florida,Fourth District.

Robert E.H. CARLISLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 95-0869, 95-1012.

Decided: February 05, 1997

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Steven H. Malone, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant. Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Michelle A. Konig, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Appellant contends that the trial court should have granted his motion to withdraw his plea, because he entered it in reliance on the trial court's statement that he would be able to appeal the court's ruling on his motion to suppress. Although it is not entirely clear what the trial court meant when he told appellant he would be able to appeal the motion to suppress, the fact is that appellant cannot appeal. Appellant did not obtain a stipulation that the ruling on the motion to suppress would be dispositive, nor should he have been able to obtain one since it clearly would not have been dispositive. In any event, appellant was entitled to rely on the court's statement that he could appeal when he agreed to enter the plea, and the fact that he cannot appeal entitled him to withdraw the plea. See Bass v. State, 541 So.2d 1336 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).

We therefore reverse.

PER CURIAM.

DELL, FARMER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network