CHARLES WENRICH
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Wenrich, a building contractor prosecuted for embezzlement, pleaded guilty but later sought to withdraw his plea and enter a not guilty plea. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the trial court's denial of the motion, holding that the trial court erred by failing to inquire into the merits of the case when the guilty plea withdrawal was contested.
The judgment was reversed because the trial court erred in refusing to allow withdrawal of the guilty plea. The trial court should have inquired into the merits of the case when presented with the motion to withdraw the plea, given the circumstances of the case and the nature of the dispute directly raised by the motion.
“The law favors trials on the merits.”
Establishes the foundational principle guiding the court's reversal—the strong judicial preference for adjudication on the merits rather than through guilty pleas.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWenrich, a building contractor facing financial difficulties, was prosecuted for embezzlement after people entrusted him with funds. He was jailed on …
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
The question presented by this appeal is whether the trial court erred by refusing to allow appellant to withdraw a plea of guilty and enter a plea of not guilty.
This is a matter involving the discretion of the trial judge and naturally we will not disturb the decision unless error is clearly apparent. For that purpose we review at some length the facts and circumstances inasmuch as we have come to the conclusion that the judgment must be reversed.
Appellant was a building contractor and suffered financial reverses which caused certain people, who had entrusted funds to him, to instigate prosecution for embezzlement. He was lodged in jail on October 17, 1946; was first brought before the court on December 16, 1946, and then only because he had indicated a willingness to plead guilty. In the meantime no warrant, or other papers, had been served upon him and he had been unable to procure an attorney or an appearance bond. During the period of incarceration, November 18, a regular term of the court was held at which time the docket was sounded; however, appellant remained in jail without receiving any consideration from the court or its officers. As to how long he may have remained there, unless he had indicated a willingness to plead guilty, we may only surmise.
There is conflict as to whether he had the advice of an attorney relative to the plea of giulty before it was entered. We do not attach a great deal of importance to that phase of the matter. Neither will we re-weigh the evidence. We are satisfied that the law was misapplied to the admitted facts. The law favors trials on the merits. Appellant formally appeared before the court in the first instance and plead guilty. In the second and last instances he formally disavowed guilt and offered to go to trial. As to whether the facts would sustain guilt we cannot say because the court made no inquiry therein. The whole testimony taken on the motion to withdraw the plea related to the mental condition of appellant at the time of the plea and his freedom from coercion. No inquiry was made into the merits of the case. We do not mean to hold that the trial court is obligated to make such an in*494quiry before accepting a plea of guilty, although it may be commendable practice to do so. In this instance we say it was error not to do so because of the nature of the case and the issue having been directly made by the motion to withdraw the plea. See Clay v. State, 82 Fla. 83, 89 So. 353; Casey v. State, 116 Fla. 3, 156 So. 282; Eckles v. State, 132 Fla. 526, 180 So. 764; Canada v. State, 144 Fla. 633, 198 So. 220.
The judgment is reversed for further proceedings.
THOMAS, C. J., TERRELL and BARNS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rubenstein v. State, 50 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 1951)…kels v. State, 86 Fla. 208, 98 So. 497, 502, 99 So. 121; Casey v. State, 116 Fla. 3, 156 So. 282; Eckles v. State, 132 Fla. 526, 180 So. 764; Sinclari v. State, 133 Fla. 77, 182 So. 637; Artigas v. State, 140 Fla. 671, 192 So. 795; Wenrich v. State, 159 Fla. 492, 32 So. 2d 11. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings. THOMAS, ADAMS, HOBSON and ROBERTS, JJ., concur. SEBRING, C.J., dissents. TERRELL, J., not participating.…
-
Bryon Elliott Stratton v. State, 77 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 1955)…of the consequences of his acts, or that he was in fact a victim of apprehension, persuasion or other circumstances which would have required the court to set aside his plea. The ruling will therefore not be disturbed upon appeal. Wenrich v. State, 159 Fla. 492, 32 So. 2d 11. The judgment appealed from is affirmed. MATHEWS, C. J., and TERRELL and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.…
-
Jordan v. State, 107 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)…kels v. State, 86 Fla. 208, 98 So. 497, 502, 99 So. 121; Casey v. State, 116 Fla. 3, 156 So. 282; Eckles v. State, 132 Fla. 526, 180 So. 764; Sinclair v. State, 133 Fla. 77, 182 So. 637; Artigas v. State, 140 Fla. 671, 192 So. 795; Wenrich v. State, 159 Fla. 492, 32 So. 2d 11.” See, also, Collins v. State, Fla., 83 So. 2d 6, where the court below questioned the defendants at length as to whether or not they understood the nature of the charge and the possible and probable consequences to them in the event…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Clay v. State, 82 Fla. 83 (Fla. 1921)
- Canada v. State, 144 Fla. 633 (Fla. 1940)
- Eckles v. State, 132 Fla. 526 (Fla. 1938)
- Casey v. State (Fla. 1924)