Foster v. State, 2D16-3902

Background

Foster was charged with lewd or lascivious molestation (life felony); State filed a Williams-rule notice seeking admission of other-act child-molestation testimony.
The trial court held a Williams hearing, found the other-act evidence admissible to prove motive, intent, and absence of mistake, and issued a written order so ruling.
On the day of trial Foster entered a negotiated guilty plea to a reduced charge with an agreed 8-year prison term and 5 years of sex-offender probation.
At the plea hearing defense counsel stated Foster was expressly reserving the right to appeal the Williams-rule ruling; the court expressed doubt that the order was dispositive but accepted the plea after colloquy.
On appeal, the court considered whether Foster’s reservation preserved appellate review of the Williams ruling and whether that ruling was a "prior dispositive order" allowing appeal from a guilty plea.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Foster preserved appellate review of the Williams-rule order after pleading guilty	Foster (defendant) argued he expressly reserved the right to appeal the Williams ruling at the plea hearing	State argued the order was not dispositive and no stipulation/finding made it so, so the reservation did not preserve appeal	The court held the reservation did not permit review because the Williams order was not shown to be dispositive
Whether the Williams-rule order was dispositive under Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A)(i) and section 924.051(4)	Foster argued the order was appealable as a prior dispositive order reserved at plea	State argued the order was not dispositive; no stipulation or court finding that exclusion would foreclose trial	Held the Williams order was not dispositive; exclusion would not prevent the State from proceeding to trial
Whether the Williams evidence was necessary to secure conviction	Foster implied the evidence was critical and its exclusion would be outcome-determinative	State contended the victim’s testimony and other evidence could still support conviction without Williams evidence	Held the Williams evidence was not necessary; victim testimony alone could likely establish the offense, so the issue is not preserved for appeal
Whether an Anders appeal required further review of the Williams ruling	Foster sought appellate review under an Anders framework	State and court noted procedural limits on appeals after guilty pleas absent dispositive reservation	Held under Anders the court affirmed without addressing the Williams merit because the issue is not cognizable on appeal when not dispositive

Key Cases Cited

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedural framework for counsel’s motion to withdraw and appellate review of frivolous claims)
Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959) (permitting admission of other acts in child-molestation prosecutions)
England v. State, 46 So. 3d 127 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (defendant may appeal a guilty plea only if he expressly reserved a prior dispositive order and identified the point with particularity)
Dermio v. State, 112 So. 3d 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (orders denying motions are not dispositive absent stipulation or court finding)
Henderson v. State, 135 So. 3d 1092 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (no appeal from guilty plea when motion was not found or agreed to be dispositive)
Leonard v. State, 760 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 2000) (affirmance is appropriate where appeal lacks a legally dispositive issue reserved for appellate review)
M.N. v. State, 16 So. 3d 280 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (defining “dispositive” as meaning the State could not proceed to trial if the defendant prevailed on appeal)
Levine v. State, 788 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (issue preserved on guilty plea only if dispositive of the case)
Campbell v. State, 386 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (denial of suppression not dispositive when other evidence would allow trial)
Ricketts v. State, 125 So. 3d 194 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (Williams evidence admissible when relevant to an element such as knowledge)