stating that the motion seeking suppression of evidence obtained from a computer tablet was not dispositive as the State "may have [nonetheless] been able to proceed to trial" based upon the additional evidence possessed by the State
How later courts described this case
- stating that the motion seeking suppression of evidence obtained from a computer tablet was not dispositive as the State "may have [nonetheless] been able to proceed to trial" based upon the additional evidence possessed by the State
- holding that where “there was no finding or agreement that the motion was disposi-tive, [the defendant] may not appeal the denial of the motion”
- "Mr. Henderson made no suggestion that the motion to suppress was dispositive at the plea hearing, the sentencing hearing, or in the written plea agreement. Because there was no finding or agreement that the motion was dispositive, Mr. Henderson may not appeal the denial of the motion."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WALLACE, Judge,
Concurring in result only.
I concur with the majority that Mr. Henderson failed to preserve for appellate review the issue of whether the evidence gathered from an iPad was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. For this reason, I agree that Mr. Henderson’s judgment and sentences must be affirmed. In my view, because Mr. Henderson has failed to preserve any issue for review, it is unnecessary to reach *1098 the various additional matters discussed in the per curiam opinion and in Judge Ca-sanueva’s concurring opinion.