Background

• Churchill was charged with conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, manufacture of methamphetamine, and possession of a listed chemical after his 2013 arrest in Citrus County.
• Before plea, he moved in limine to exclude deputy testimony and field-test results under Daubert and §90.702; the trial court denied the motion, finding the deputy qualified as an expert.
• Churchill entered a conditional no contest plea, reserving the right to appeal the pre-plea ruling; the State stipulated that the ruling was dispositive of the case.
• The Fifth District dismissed Churchill’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, concluding it was not bound by the parties’ stipulation and that the specific issue raised on appeal was not legally dispositive.
• The Florida Supreme Court granted review and held that when the State stipulates that a pre-plea ruling is dispositive, the appellate court must accept that stipulation and may reach the merits.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Ashby v. State, 245 So.2d 225 (Fla. 1971) (permitting conditional no contest pleas reserving legal questions for appeal)
• Brown v. State, 376 So.2d 382 (Fla. 1979) (limits conditional pleas to appeals of issues that are legally dispositive)
• Jackson v. State, 382 So.2d 749 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) (state stipulation that confession was necessary made the ruling dispositive); aff'd, 392 So.2d 1324 (Fla. 1981)
• Finney v. State, 420 So.2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (en banc) (accepting stipulation of dispositiveness and deciding the appeal on the merits)
• Zeigler v. State, 471 So.2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (concurring opinion explaining need to accept stipulations to avoid de novo fact-finding on appeal)
• Beermunder v. State, 191 So.3d 1000 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (noting stipulation can render an issue dispositive even if not dispositive as a matter of law)
• Churchill v. State, 169 So.3d 1260 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (decision quashed for refusing to accept stipulation of dispositiveness)