Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

382 So. 2d 749

Docket No. NN-168.

Jackson v. State

Frank JACKSON, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided March 28, 1980.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1980-03-28

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“as a matter of law a confession may not be considered dispositive of the case for purposes of an Ashby nolo plea.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 474 So. 2d 884 - STN v. State

“the State has no case and would be unable to proceed with the prosecution without the confession.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Puccio v. State

Relies on 245 So. 2d 225 - State v. Ashby · 376 So. 2d 382 - Brown v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1980-03-28

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently April 2017 · most notably 420 So. 2d 639 - Finney v. State (1982), 486 So. 2d 1356 - Morgan v. State (1986)

26 state decisions

2001980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*750 Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender, and Margaret Good, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

¶2Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Richard W. Prospect, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

¶3

ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5Appellant asserts in his motion for rehearing or clarification that this court evidently overlooked Brown v. State,376 So.2d 382 (Fla. 1979), in which the Supreme Court of Florida ruled that a conditional nolo contendere plea (State v. Ashby,245 So.2d 225 (Fla. 1971)), is permissible only if the legal issue to be appealed is dispositive of the case, and that "as a matter of law a confession may not be considered dispositive of the case" (Brown, at 385) for purposes of an Ashby nolo plea.

¶6The record presented to this court reveals a stipulation filed in the trial court in which both the State and the defense agreed that the State could not proceed with the prosecution of this case without the benefit of the confession as evidence. This court did not overlook Brown v. State, supra, but did consider it, and determined that the "dispositive effect" of a confession, as a matter of law, must be viewed in accordance with that decision. However, we do not consider that decision as precluding a stipulation, by the State and the defendant, such as we have in the record here, in which both sides agree that the State has no case and would be unable to proceed with the prosecution without the confession. Under these circumstances we concluded that the ruling on the admissibility of a confession would be "dispositive of the appeal". Having so considered it, we reviewed the appeal on the merits, and affirmed the ruling of the trial court.

¶7Accordingly, the motion for rehearing and motion for rehearing en banc are denied.

¶8ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., LARRY G. SMITH and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.

/382/so2d/749 · .json · Public domain