Florida District Courts of Appeal, 2005

Marion v. State

Marion v. State
Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided November 9, 2005 · Klein, Taylor, Warner
913 So. 2d 1243; 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 17665; 2005 WL 2990490 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Marion v. State

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Appellant failed to preserve the issue of the denial of the motion to suppress, because no reservation of the right to appeal was made as to this issue. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A)(i). While appellant’s lawyer said at sentencing that, “He is going to reserve his right to ap*1244peal,” the court’s response indicates that the court believed that the right to appeal was directed to the sentence, and no reservation of right to appeal was made in the written plea agreement. To reserve the right to appeal a dispositive issue, the issue must be identified with particularity on the point of law being reserved. ' As this was not done, the appellánt failed to preserve his right to appeal the issue raised in his brief.

WARNER, KLEIN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.