TERENCE TIMOTHY HARDEN, 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.
Harden challenges the trial court's denial of his motion to withdraw guilty pleas to burglary charges. The court held that formal acceptance of a plea requires the trial judge to affirmatively state on the record that the plea is accepted, and absent such formal acceptance, a defendant may withdraw the plea without justification.
Formal acceptance of a plea occurs when the trial court affirmatively states to the parties, in open court and for the record, that the court accepts the plea. Because the trial court did not formally accept Harden's pleas before he sought to withdraw them, the court's refusal to permit withdrawal was error.
[1] A plea offer or negotiation is not binding until formally accepted by the trial judge after completing all required inquiries, advisements, and determinations.
[2] Until a trial judge formally accepts a guilty plea, either party may withdraw from the plea without justification.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“No plea offer or negotiation is binding until it is accepted by the trial judge formally after making all inquiries, ad-visements and determinations required by this Rule. Until that time, it may be withdrawn by either party without any necessary justification.”
States the controlling legal standard from Rule 3.172(f) requiring formal acceptance of pleas
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarden initially pleaded not guilty to charges of burglary and attempted burglary. During a change of plea hearing, his counsel recited the terms of a…
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
DELL, Judge.
Appellant challenges the trial court’s order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas.
Appellant had pleaded not guilty to charges of burglary and attempted burglary. During the change of plea hearing, appellant’s counsel recited the terms of a plea agreement negotiated with the State, and the court made the inquiries required by Rule 3.172(c), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The State then presented the factual basis of the charges, and the court ordered a predisposition report and a pre-sentence investigation. The court also caused to be filed in the record of each case a document called “Deferred Adjudication and Sentence.” This document appears to be a written recapitulation of the events which occurred at the change of plea hearing. It states that appellant withdrew his not guilty plea and entered a guilty plea, and it states that the court will defer adjudication and sentence pending the predisposition report and the presentence investigation. At no time did the trial judge state that he accepted appellant’s guilty pleas.
This appeal presents the question of what constitutes formal acceptance for purposes of Rule 3.172(f). The rule provides:
No plea offer or negotiation is binding until it is accepted by the trial judge formally after making all inquiries, ad-visements and determinations required by this Rule. Until that time, it may be withdrawn by either party without any necessary justification.
[Emphasis added.]
Until formal acceptance has occurred, the plea binds no one: not the defendant, Hyde v. State, 405 So. 2d 445 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), the prosecutor, State v. Reasbeck, 359 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) or the court, State ex rel. Wilhoit v. Wells, 356 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). The State argues that acceptance of the pleas can be inferred from the existence of the Deferred Adjudications in the record. Although these documents state that appellant entered guilty pleas, they do not state that the judge accepted the pleas. It could as easily be argued that the court evidenced its intent not to accept the pleas by deferring adjudication and ordering predisposition and presentence investigation reports. Since the ability of all parties to repudiate a negotiated plea hinges upon acceptance of the plea by the court, the rule wisely requires formal acceptance of that plea, rather than subjective or implied acceptance. We therefore hold that formal acceptance of a plea occurs when the trial court affirmatively states to the parties, in open court and for the record, that the court accepts the plea.
Since the trial court did not formally accept appellant’s pleas before he sought to withdraw them, the court’s refusal to permit withdrawal of the pleas was error. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DOWNEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Bass v. State, 541 So. 2d 1336 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…ing until it is accepted by the trial judge formally after making all the inquiries, advisements and determinations required by this Rule. Until that time, it may be withdrawn by either party without any necessary justification. In Harden v. State, 453 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), this court addressed the question of what constitutes formal acceptance pursuant to the Rule and held that “until formal acceptance has occurred the plea binds no one: not the defendant, the prosecutor, or the court.” Furthermor…
-
Campbell v. State, 125 So. 3d 733 (Fla. 2013)…l inquiries, advisements and determinations required by this rule. Until that time, it may be withdrawn by either party without any necessary justification. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.172(g). The rule does not define “formal acceptance.” In Harden v. State, 453 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), in reversing the trial court’s order denying the defendant’s pre-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea, the Fourth District interpreted “formal acceptance” as an affirmative statement on the record: The State argues that…
-
Demartine v. State, 647 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…no merit in appellant’s argument that the alleged error constituted fundamental error. However, this issue is likely to reoccur; therefore we will address appellant’s argument. Appellant argues, based upon this court’s decisions in Harden v. State, 453 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), and Bass v. State, 541 So. 2d 1336 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), that since the trial court failed to formally accept his plea, he had the right to withdraw his plea at any time. In Harden, we clarified the meaning of formal acceptance a…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State ex rel. William M. C. Wilhoit v. Wells, 356 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- State v. Hon. James M. Reasbeck, 359 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Hyde v. State, 405 So. 2d 445 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)