Tiller v. State, 330 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). · Go Syfert
Search
Tiller v. State, 330 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
21 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Webb v. State (fladistctapp, 1979-07-24)
Treatment trajectory · 1976 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1976 2001 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Webb v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1979 · confidence medium
Gibbs v. State, 344 So.2d 621 (Fla.3rd DCA 1977); Tiller v. State, 330 So.2d 792, 793 (Fla.1st DCA (1976)." ( Brown v. State , opinion page 140) In an earlier decision of this court, Tiller v. State, supra, we considered a Fourth Amendment question under circumstances somewhat similar to those presented in the case sub judice.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Taylor v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1978 · confidence medium
State v. Ashby, 245 So.2d 225, 228 (Fla. 1971); Tiller v. State, 330 So.2d 792, 793 (Fla.1st DCA 1976); Jackson v. State, 294 So.2d 114 (Fla.4th DCA 1974).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Brown v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1978 · confidence medium
Gibbs v. State, 344 So.2d 621 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Tiller v. State, 330 So.2d 792, 793 (Fla.1st DCA 1976).
discussed Cited "see" Brown v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See Tiller v. State, 330 So.2d 792 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). [3] We note that if Brown had established that she abandoned the contraband as a direct result of the illegal stop, then her motion should have been granted.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Edward Lamont Hicks v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Tiller v. State, 330 So. 2d 792, 793 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) (holding that, without a dispositiveness requirement, “appellate courts will be placed in the untenable position of rendering advisory opinions and the disposition of criminal cases will be unacceptably delayed”).
Robert Earl TILLER, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Z-488.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Apr 30, 1976.
330 So. 2d 792
Per Curiam.
Cited by 17 opinions  |  Published

[*793] Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, and David J. Busch, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Donald K. Rudser, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We are bound to agree with Tiller's assertion that the marijuana seized by officers in a search of Tiller's wrecked vehicle should have been suppressed as evidence in his prosecution for possession of more than five grams of the substance. That, however, does not avail Tiller, who appeals from a judgment entered on his plea of nolo contendere, reserving only the right to assign error in the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress the marijuana found in his automobile.

The record also shows that other marijuana was found by officers at the wreck scene in circumstances permitting an inference that Tiller possessed it in the automobile before the wreck. Tiller made no motion to suppress the use of that material as evidence and the record contains no representation by the state which would permit us to find that Tiller's prosecution was predicated entirely on the fruits of the illegal search. The conviction, entered on a plea which did not contest Tiller's possession of the marijuana exceeding five grams, will be affirmed.

We are authorized to decide contested questions of law, such as the Fourth Amendment question presented here, when the trial court determines to accept a plea of nolo contendere from an accused who wishes to reserve appellate rights concerning that question of law. State v. Ashby, 245 So.2d 225 (Fla. 1971). This case demonstrates that the remedy of appeal cannot be afforded such an accused when the search and seizure question he seeks to reserve for appellate determination is not dispositive of the case. The record at the time of the tender of the plea of nolo contendere should show clearly that the state's case against the accused cannot succeed without use of the evidence sought to be suppressed. Otherwise, appellate courts will be placed in the untenable position of rendering advisory opinions and the disposition of criminal cases will be unacceptably delayed.

AFFIRMED.

RAWLS, Acting C.J., and MILLS and SMITH, JJ., concur.