Case Name: Surapo S. SORAKRAI, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1990-08-31
Citations: 566 So. 2d 71
Docket Number: No. 89-03548
Parties: Surapo S. SORAKRAI, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: RYDER, A.C.J., and DANAHY and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 566
Pages: 71–71

Head Matter:
Surapo S. SORAKRAI, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 89-03548.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Aug. 31, 1990.
James F. Manderscheid, St. Petersburg Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Stephen A. Baker, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
It appears that this appeal has been taken directly from the denial of appellant's motion to dismiss. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(c)(4). Accordingly, the appeal is subject to dismissal as premature. We note that the trial court, in accepting appellant's plea of nolo contendere, agreed to certify that this case involves a question of great importance. However, we believe that substantially the same question already has been addressed by this court in a prior proceeding. State v. Sorakrai, 543 So.2d 294 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).
Appeal dismissed.
RYDER, A.C.J., and DANAHY and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.