Markae Devontae Massey v. State of Florida
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledJuly 15, 2021
Docket1D20-0950
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D20-950
_____________________________
MARKAE DEVONTAE MASSEY,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.
Marianne L. Aho, Judge.
July 15, 2021
PER CURIAM.
Appellant pleaded guilty to four counts of armed robbery and
one count of possession of a firearm by a juvenile delinquent found
to have committed a felony. On appeal, he seeks reversal of his
convictions and sentence, arguing the trial court erred in denying
a motion to continue. A defendant may only appeal an issue after
a guilty plea if the issue is expressly reserved and dispositive. Fla.
R. App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A)(i). Appellant did not expressly reserve
the right to appeal the denial of the motion to continue. See Terry
v. State, 149 So. 3d 113 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).
Appellant asserts he implicitly reserved the right to appeal
what must be a dispositive issue. Even if the issue had been
preserved, we would affirm. The denial of a motion to continue
will not be reversed absent a “palpable abuse of discretion,” which
is not present in the record here. See Magill v. State, 386 So. 2d
1188, 1188 (Fla. 1980). An experienced public defender was
appointed to represent Appellant in this case and in his
accompanying violation of probation (VOP) case. Appellant
quickly discharged the public defender in this case, but she
remained counsel in his VOP case. Appellant declined the trial
court’s renewed offer of counsel numerous times pre-trial. The
trial court conducted the appropriate Faretta v. California, 422
U.S. 806 (1975), inquiries, held a competency hearing, and
ultimately found no reason to deny Appellant’s request to proceed
to trial pro se. The trial court appointed the public defender as
standby counsel. The public defender expressed concern
Appellant was not prepared because he had not deposed several
witnesses, but Appellant remained steadfast in his desire to
proceed to trial pro se. After the jury was sworn and just before
witnesses (who had been flown in last minute at the State’s
expense) were called, Appellant requested counsel. The public
defender moved to continue so that she could adequately prepare.
The trial court recessed to give her time to interview witnesses
and review the evidence. After the recess, Appellant entered a
guilty plea to the charges. Given the circumstances of this case,
the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion
to continue. For these reasons, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
B.L. THOMAS, ROBERTS, and LONG, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________
Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Laurel Cornell Niles,
Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
2
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Adam B. Wilson, Assistant
Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
3