From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Garcia-Roque v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Aug 30, 2013
120 So. 3d 618 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

Summary

affirming defendant's convictions and sentences without addressing lower court's ruling on the motion in limine because such ruling was not dispositive

Summary of this case from Churchill v. State

Opinion

No. 5D13–230.

2013-08-30

Felipe GARCIA–ROQUE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Margaret Schreiber, Judge. James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Christopher S. Quarles, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Ann M. Phillips, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.


Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Margaret Schreiber, Judge.
James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Christopher S. Quarles, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Ann M. Phillips, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

Felipe Garcia–Roque appeals his convictions and sentences on three counts of sexual battery of a child under eighteen by a person in familial or custodial authority, entered after he entered pleas to the charges while purportedly reserving the right to appeal the trial court's ruling on a pre-trial motion in limine. Because the trial court's ruling on the motion in limine was not dispositive, see, e.g., Levine v. State, 788 So.2d 379, 380 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (explaining that “[a]n issue is legally dispositive only if, regardless of whether the appellate court affirms or reverses the lower court's decision, there will be no trial of the case”) (internal quotations and citations omitted), it cannot be challenged on direct appeal following Garcia–Roque's pleas. Id. (“An issue is preserved for appeal on a guilty plea only if it is dispositive of the case.”) (citations omitted). As such, we affirm Garcia–Roque's convictions and sentences without addressing the trial court's ruling on the motion in limine. Our affirmance is without prejudice to any post-conviction remedy that may be available.

AFFIRMED.

SAWAYA, ORFINGER, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Garcia-Roque v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Aug 30, 2013
120 So. 3d 618 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

affirming defendant's convictions and sentences without addressing lower court's ruling on the motion in limine because such ruling was not dispositive

Summary of this case from Churchill v. State
Case details for

Garcia-Roque v. State

Case Details

Full title:Felipe GARCIA–ROQUE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Date published: Aug 30, 2013

Citations

120 So. 3d 618 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

Citing Cases

Churchill v. State

We decline to address the issue. Because the trial court's order was not dispositive, it cannot be challenged…