EDWARD R. RICHMOND, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Defendant's plea agreement was invalidated because the trial court imposed a mandatory minimum sentence not disclosed before the plea, requiring remand for withdrawal of plea or resentencing.
A defendant who pleads nolo contendere based on an agreed sentence must be given the opportunity to withdraw the plea if the trial court imposes a mandatory minimum sentence not previously disclosed.
[1] A trial court must permit withdrawal of a guilty plea when a mandatory minimum sentence imposed at sentencing was not disclosed or agreed to before the plea was entered.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRichmond pleaded nolo contendere to attempted burglary, attempted assault, and assault on a police officer in exchange for concurrent five-year senten…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Withdrawal Of Guilty Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant pled nolo contendere to attempted burglary, attempted assault, and assault on a police officer. In exchange for his plea, he understood there was an agreement between the state and himself that he would receive concurrent five-year sentences. At the sentencing hearing, the trial judge stated he would impose the agreed upon sentence. At the very end of the hearing, however, the state attorney called the judge’s attention to the fact that Section 775.087, Florida Statutes (1977), imposes a minimum three-year sentence for possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. At that point, the trial judge said he would impose the concurrent five-year sentences, but that appellant would have to serve a mandatory minimum of three years in prison.
Appellant filed a challenge to his sentence under Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, asserting that he agreed to a five-year sentence, not a five-year sentence with a mandatory three years in prison. His motion was denied and he appealed to this court. We hold that the trial court should have given appellant an opportunity to withdraw his plea. Norris v. State, 343 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
We vacate appellant’s plea because the sentence was not what he bargained for, and remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
MILLS, C. J., and McCORD and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Logan Finney v. State, 420 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), cert. denied, 389 So. 2d 1117 (Fla.1980). Court rejection of a plea agreement leads to withdrawal of the plea. Davis v. State, 308 So. 2d 27 (Fla.1975); Freeman v. State, 376 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Richmond v. State, 375 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Segarra v. State, 360 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) rev’d on other grounds, 388 So. 2d 1017 (Fla.1980); State ex rel. Wilhoit v. Wells, 356 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 359 So. 2d 1222 (Fla.1978); Slay v. State, 347 S…
-
Green v. State, 406 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…error to fail to advise the defendant of a mandatory minimum sentence, it is also error to fail to advise defendant of a maximum possible sentence. Under such circumstances, Green’s sentence was not what he bargained for. See also Richmond v. State, 375 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Accordingly, we find that the defendant was not properly apprised of the true significance and consequences of his guilty plea. We therefore remand this cause to the trial court for the purpose of allowing the defendant to withd…
-
Ramsey v. State, 408 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…Supreme Court held: “The defendant has established to our satisfaction that hé was prejudiced by an honest misunderstanding which contaminated the voluntariness of the pleas.” See also Costello v. State, 260 So. 2d 198 (Fla.1972); Richmond v. State, 375 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Whether appellant can meet this test is best determined by the trial court after consideration of testimony from appellant and his trial attorney rather than by this court on the basis of affidavits only. Accordingly, we reverse…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Norris v. State, 343 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)