MASSEY v. STATE (2021)

Appellant pleaded guilty to four counts of armed robbery and one count of possession of a firearm by a juvenile delinquent found to have committed a felony. On appeal, he seeks reversal of his convictions and sentence, arguing the trial court erred in denying a motion to continue. A defendant may only appeal an issue after a guilty plea if the issue is expressly reserved and dispositive. Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A)(i). Appellant did not expressly reserve the right to appeal the denial of the motion to continue. See Terry v. State, 149 So. 3d 113 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).

Appellant asserts he implicitly reserved the right to appeal what must be a dispositive issue. Even if the issue had been preserved, we would affirm. The denial of a motion to continue will not be reversed absent a “palpable abuse of discretion,” which is not present in the record here. See Magill v. State, 386 So. 2d 1188, 1188 (Fla. 1980). An experienced public defender was appointed to represent Appellant in this case and in his accompanying violation of probation (VOP) case. Appellant quickly discharged the public defender in this case, but she remained counsel in his VOP case. Appellant declined the trial court's renewed offer of counsel numerous times pre-trial. The trial court conducted the appropriate Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), inquiries, held a competency hearing, and ultimately found no reason to deny Appellant's request to proceed to trial pro se. The trial court appointed the public defender as standby counsel. The public defender expressed concern Appellant was not prepared because he had not deposed several witnesses, but Appellant remained steadfast in his desire to proceed to trial pro se. After the jury was sworn and just before witnesses (who had been flown in last minute at the State's expense) were called, Appellant requested counsel. The public defender moved to continue so that she could adequately prepare. The trial court recessed to give her time to interview witnesses and review the evidence. After the recess, Appellant entered a guilty plea to the charges. Given the circumstances of this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to continue. For these reasons, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

B.L. Thomas, Roberts, and Long, JJ., concur.