FEDERICO ESPINOZA, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Affirmed convictions and sentences for cocaine trafficking and conspiracy; defendant's guilty plea without reservation limits appellate review to jurisdictional defects, preserved plea challenges, and sentencing errors.
A defendant who enters a negotiated guilty plea without reserving appellate rights is limited to challenging subject matter jurisdiction, preserved plea issues, and sentencing errors, and cannot raise suppression or unpreserved voluntariness claims.
[1] A defendant who enters a negotiated guilty plea without reserving appellate rights may appeal only subject matter jurisdiction defects, preserved plea agreement violation…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“[T]he legislature plainly stated its intent to punish conspiracy to traffic in cocaine separately from the act of trafficking in that substance.”
Ramos v. State, 529 So. 2d 807, 808 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), cited for the proposition that dual punishment for conspiracy and trafficking does not violate double jeopardy.
Federico Espinoza was convicted of trafficking in cocaine (200 grams) and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine (200 grams) after entering negotiated guilt…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Reservation Of Right To Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
Federico Espinoza challenges his convictions and sentences for trafficking in cocaine, 200 grams, and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine, 200 grams. We affirm but write to note that because Espinoza entered negotiated guilty pleas to the charges without reserving his right to appeal any dispositive issues, he is limited to raising the following issues on appeal: (1) lack of subject matter jurisdiction; (2) violation of plea agreement, if preserved by a motion to withdraw plea; (3) voluntariness of plea, if preserved by motion to withdraw plea; or (4) a sentencing error, if preserved. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A)(ii).
As such, Espinoza cannot now challenge the denial of his motion to suppress. Additionally, his attempts to attack the volun-tariness of his plea are not preserved for appeal because he has not filed a motion to withdraw plea with the trial court. Finally, Espinoza argues that it was fundamental error and a double jeopardy violation to sentence him for both conspiracy to traffic in cocaine and trafficking in cocaine. We disagree. See Ramos v. State, 529 So.2d 807, 808 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (“[T]he legislature plainly stated its intent to punish conspiracy to traffic in cocaine separately] from the act of trafficking in that substance.”).
Affirmed.
SILBERMAN and VILLANTI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harrell v. State, 162 So. 3d 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…tly opining on times at which a search would be considered unreasonable, Florida courts have allowed the admission of evidence obtained in non-exigent searches conducted at more egregious hours than the 5:45 a.m. search at issue here. State v. Chen, 1 So. 3d 1257, 1259-60 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (reversing order suppressing evidence obtained in 12:30 a.m. search of apartment); State v. Swank, 399 So. 2d 510, 512 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (reversing order suppressing evidence obtained in 4:00 a.m. search of hotel room).…
-
State v. Candi L. Loredo, 129 So. 3d 1188 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…the illegal activity and the date of issuance of the warrant increases.” Id. Affidavits should be considered in their entirety and read in a common-sense manner. Gates, 462 U.S. at 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317; Barrentine, 107 So. 3d at 485; State v. Chen, 1 So. 3d 1257, 1266 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). Based on a reading of the affidavit as a whole, the surveillance would have begun sometime after the detective spoke with CS-1 in February 2011. And the affidavit indicates that on the date of the failed drug transaction, M…
-
Hampton v. State, 135 So. 3d 440 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)…cy. The legislature clearly expressed its intent that a person conspiring to traffic in a controlled substance be punished to the same extent as he or she would have been punished for actually committing a trafficking offense. See Espinoza v. State, 1 So. 3d 1257 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (holding that double jeopardy principles do not prevent convictions and sentences for both trafficking in a controlled substance and conspiracy to traffic in the same substance). It seems equally clear that the legislature did not…
Authorities Cited
- Ramos v. State, 529 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)