# Jackson v. State

> District Court of Appeal of Florida · March 28, 1980 · 382 So. 2d 749

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1667382

## Case

- **Court:** District Court of Appeal of Florida
- **Decided:** March 28, 1980
- **Citations:** 382 So. 2d 749
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Per Curiam
- **Cited by:** 30 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1667382

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that, notwithstanding Brown, a pre-plea ruling by the trial court was “dispositive of the appeal” based on the parties’ agreement that “the State ha[d] no case and would be unable to proceed with the prosecution without the confession”
- holding appellate court will treat appeal as involving a dispositive issue if the State stipulates to it

## Opinion text

382 So.2d 749 (1980)
Frank JACKSON, Jr., Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. NN-168.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
March 28, 1980.
*750 Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender, and Margaret Good, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Richard W. Prospect, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
Appellant 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.
The 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.
Accordingly, the motion for rehearing and motion for rehearing en banc are denied.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., LARRY G. SMITH and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1667382. Public record. Not legal advice.