From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Seabrook v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Jun 15, 1993
620 So. 2d 227 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

Opinion

No. 92-413.

June 15, 1993.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court of Dade County; Henry L. Oppenborn, Judge.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Marti Rothenberg, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Fleur J. Lobree, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and JORGENSON and GODERICH, JJ.


ON MOTION FOR REHEARING


On consideration of the State's motion for rehearing, we grant the motion, withdraw our opinion filed February 23, 1993, and substitute the following opinion in lieu thereof.

The trial court failed to make an express finding that the reserved issue was dispositive. Moreover, the parties did not stipulate that the issue was dispositive. In fact, the State argued below that it would be able to go forward without the confidential informant's testimony. Therefore, the issue was not preserved for appellate review. See Sharpe v. State, 589 So.2d 964 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Everett v. State, 535 So.2d 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); D.K.G. v. State, 460 So.2d 549 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.


Summaries of

Seabrook v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Jun 15, 1993
620 So. 2d 227 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)
Case details for

Seabrook v. State

Case Details

Full title:ANDRE SEABROOK, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Jun 15, 1993

Citations

620 So. 2d 227 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

Citing Cases

Werner v. State

However, as both sides stipulated, the defendant does not have a right to appeal because the issue is not…