Ferran v. State

PER CURIAM. Stephen Matthew Ferran pleaded guilty to two counts of burglary of a conveyance and one count of possession of burglary tools. He now challenges the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence. However, although the parties appear to have agreed that the issue was preserved for appeal, there was neither a stipulation nor a determination by the trial court that the denial of the motion to suppress was dis-positive. We therefore affirm without further comment. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A)(i); Leonard v. State, 760 So.2d 114, 119 (Fla.2000); M.N. v. State, 16 So.3d 280, 281 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). Because it appears to us that Mr. Fer-ran may have believed that his plea was conditioned upon the reservation of his right to appeal from the denial of his motion to suppress, our affirmance is without prejudice to Mr. Ferran’s right to file a timely motion to withdraw his plea pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Sears v. State, 920 So.2d 709, 709 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Sloss v. State, 917 So.2d 941, 942 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Affirmed. WALLACE, BLACK, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.