Case Name: Bauldy A. SHARPE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1991-11-19
Citations: 589 So. 2d 964
Docket Number: No. 91-1712
Parties: Bauldy A. SHARPE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and COPE, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 589
Pages: 964–964

Head Matter:
Bauldy A. SHARPE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 91-1712.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Nov. 19, 1991.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Valerie Jonas, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Angelica D. Zayas, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and COPE, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The denial of a motion to disclose the identity of a confidential informant, which was arguably sought to be preserved for appellate review by the appellant's nolo plea, is not a dispositive order. The appeal is therefore dismissed, Roob v. State, 572 So.2d 1022 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), without prejudice to an application for withdrawal of the plea. Roob, 572 So.2d at 1023; cf. Gibson v. State, 386 So.2d 588 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (plea ordered withdrawn when, unlike this case, it was clear all parties relied on appealability of order).
Appeal dismissed.