IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY
APPELLATE DIVISION

DONALD JOSEPH BEDARD,

            Appellant,

vs.                                                                   Appeal No. CRC 99-11783 CFANO

STATE OF FLORIDA,

            Appellee.

_________________________________/

Opinion filed _____________________.

Appeal from a sentence of the Pinellas County Court

County Judge Myra Scott McNary

Donald Joseph Bedard
Appellant Pro Se

Cheryl Smith-Khan, Esq.
Assistant State Attorney
Attorney for Appellee

ORDER AND OPINION

            THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Appellant’s appeal from the sentence of the trial court, which Appellant claims, was the result of the “misconduct” of his court appointed counsel.

On April 28, 1999, Appellant was arrested for domestic battery, and the Public Defender was appointed. On June 23, 1999, Appellant entered a plea of no contest and received the disposition of an adjudication of guilt.  The Appellant thereafter appealed the sentence received as the result of that adjudication of guilt alleging “misconduct’’ of his court appointed counsel.

Florida Statute Sec. 924.06(3) provides in pertinent part:

A defendant, who pleads nolo contendere with no express reservation of the right to appeal a legally dispositive issue, shall have no right to a direct appeal. 

The record reflects that the Appellant pled no contest to the charge of battery on a plea agreement signed by the Appellant on June 23, 1999.  The record is devoid of any evidence that the Appellant expressly reserved the right to appeal any issue.  However, the Florida Supreme Court in Robinson v. State, 373 So.2d 898 (Fla. 1979), held that there is a limited class of issues which occur contemporaneously with the entry of a plea of guilty or a plea of nolo contendere that may be the proper subject of a direct appeal.  The Court stated:  “To our knowledge, they would include only the following: (1) subject matter jurisdiction, (2) the illegality of the sentence, (3) the failure of the government to abide by the plea agreement, and (4) the voluntary and intelligent character of the plea.’’  In this case, the Appellant does not contend that the trial court was without jurisdiction, that the sentence was illegal, that there was a failure to abide by the plea agreement, or that the plea was not intelligently and voluntarily made.  The Appellant has only contended “misconduct’’ of his court appointed counsel.  This Court specifically declines to address the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel since such issue may not be properly raised for the first time on appeal.  Barber v. State, 301 So.2d 7 (Fla. 1984); Tillery v. State, 592 So.2d 1123 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

 As the Appellant has failed to assert an issue that is the proper subject of a direct appeal, this Court is without jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

Based on the foregoing it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida this 25th day of July, 2000.

 

____________________________
CHARLES W. COPE
Circuit Judge
Primary Appellate Judge


_____________________________
NANCY MOAT LEY
Circuit Judge


_____________________________
R. TIMOTHY PETERS
Circuit Judge

 

Copies furnished to:

The Honorable Myra Scott McNary

Donald Joseph Bedard
Appellant Pro Se
P.O. Box 1667
Clearwater, Florida 33757

Cheryl Smith-Khan, Esq.
Assistant State Attorney
P.O. Box 5028
Clearwater, Florida 33758