GEORGE REGAN JONES v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA GEORGE REGAN JONES, Appellant, v. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D04-5366 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _____________________________/ Opinion filed July 20, 2006. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Walton County. Kelvin C. Wells, Judge. Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Edgar Lee Elzie, Jr., and M. Gene Stephens, Assistant Public Defenders, Tallahassee, for Appellant. Charlie Crist, Attorney General, and Sheron Wells, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. George Regan Jones appeals his convictions for various offenses of possession of and trafficking in drugs, entered following his nolo contendere pleas, conditioned on his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress the search of the house from which the drugs were obtained. For the reasons following, we dismiss the appeal and remand the case with directions. Without addressing the merits of the motion, the lower court decided only that appellant did not have standing to contest the search on the ground that he was not a resident of the house searched.1 Because it appeared to this court that the trial court s determination of standing was not dispositive of the case, meaning that regardless of whether the appellate court affirms or reverses the lower court s decision, there will be no trial of the case, Morgan v. State, 486 So. 2d 1356, 1357 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), we relinquished jurisdiction to the trial court for a decision on whether the order to be reviewed was dispositive. On remand, the court decided only that a ruling on the motion to suppress would be dispositive, not that its specific ruling on standing was dispositive of all issues, as the parties themselves agreed that the ruling would have no such effect. In that it clearly appears from the record that the court s ruling on standing would not preclude the trial of the case, we are required to DISMISS this appeal and 1 The court should not have limited its determination solely to the question of standing, but should have resolved as well the merits of the motion to suppress. See Dean v. State, 478 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1985); Andrews v. State, 536 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), review denied, 544 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 1989); Sparkman v. State, 482 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). 2 REMAND the case to the trial court with directions that, if the defendant so moves, the trial court shall vacate and set aside the judgments and sentences and allow the defendant to withdraw his pleas of nolo contendere, and shall thereafter reinstate his not-guilty plea. See Morgan v. State. ERVIN, DAVIS, and LEWIS, JJ., CONCUR. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
