ROBERT BRIMMER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1984-12-14
No. BA-11
WENTWORTH and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.
462 So. 2d 29 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1984) Caution
Cited by 5 cases

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.

Synopsis

Robert Brimmer appeals the denial of his post-conviction motion alleging intoxication at guilty plea entry, breach of the sentencing portion of his plea bargain, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court affirmed the denial, finding his intoxication claim refuted by contemporaneous documents, his sentencing complaint waived by his failure to appear and subsequent knowing choice not to withdraw his plea, and his counsel's representation adequate.


Holding

The court held that appellant's intoxication claim was affirmatively refuted by his contemporaneous signed acknowledgment that he was not under the influence of any substance interfering with his understanding of his pleas. The court held that appellant waived any complaint about the sentencing breach because he had full knowledge of the court's position before sentencing and chose not to withdraw his pleas. The court held that the tactical decision to plead guilty was within the wide range of professionally competent assistance.


Headnotes

[1] A defendant's acknowledgment on a guilty plea form that they are not under the influence of any substance that would interfere with their understanding of the plea and it…

[2] A defendant waives the right to complain about a trial court's failure to honor a plea bargain's sentencing provision when the defendant has full knowledge of the court's…

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

Key Quotes

“appellant acknowledged that he was not under the influence of any drug, substance or condition which would interfere with his understanding and appreciation of his pleas and the consequences thereof”

Establishes that appellant's contemporaneous written acknowledgment affirmatively refutes his later claim of intoxication at the time of pleading guilty

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Appellant entered guilty pleas to grand theft and aggravated battery pursuant to a plea agreement providing for a maximum sentence of one year in coun…

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.


Opinion of the Court
SHIVERS, Judge.

SHIVERS, Judge.

Appellant appeals the trial court’s denial of his RCrP 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. In his motion, appellant alleged that he was intoxicated at the time he entered his pleas of guilty to grand theft and aggravated battery, that the trial court failed to honor the sentencing part of the plea bargain, and that appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied appellant’s motion, attaching to its order a copy of the plea of guilty and negotiated sentence form executed by appellant and copies of the transcripts of the plea and sentencing hearings. We affirm.

First, appellant’s allegation that he was intoxicated at the time he entered his pleas is affirmatively refuted by the plea of guilty and negotiated sentence form executed by appellant at the time he entered his pleas of guilty. See generally O’Quinn v. State, 364 So. 2d 775, 776 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cert. denied, 373 So. 2d 460 (Fla.1979). In this form, appellant acknowledged that he was not under the influence of any drug, substance or condition which would interfere with his understanding and appreciation of his pleas and the consequences thereof.

Next, we find that appellant waived any right to now complain about the trial court’s failure to honor the sentencing part of the plea bargain. Sub judice, after negotiations with the State, appellant pled guilty to grand theft and aggravated battery in exchange for an agreed maximum sentence of one year in the county jail to be followed by five years probation. Sentencing was set for a hearing to be held in three weeks. The trial judge advised appellant that if he did not show up at the sentencing hearing when scheduled, appellant’s pleas of guilty would stand, but that the maximum of one year in the county jail would be off.

Appellant failed to show up at the scheduled sentencing hearing. When appellant did finally show up at a subsequently scheduled hearing, defense counsel informed the trial court that he had advised appellant of the trial court’s position that the sentencing part of the plea negotiations was no longer in force and that appellant could receive up to the maximum penalty of twenty years. Defense counsel further informed the trial court that he had asked appellant whether he wanted him (defense counsel) to try and withdraw appellant’s pleas of guilty and that appellant had requested that he not. After presentation of testimony in aggravation and mitigation of appellant’s sentences, appellant was sentenced to five years on the grand theft charge and ten years on the aggravated battery charge, these sentences to run concurrently.

Under the circumstances detailed above, we find, as previously noted, that appellant waived any right to now assert that the trial court failed to honor the sentencing part of the plea bargain. Here, appellant had full knowledge at the sentencing hearing of the trial court’s position that it was not bound by the sentencing part of the plea bargain and that it could impose within its discretion up to the maximum penalty allowed by law. Notwithstanding, appellant chose not to try to withdraw his previously entered pleas of guilty and, instead, chose to rely on the mercy of the court. Appellant may not now be heard to complain because the trial court’s mercy, or lack thereof, did not live up to appellant’s expectations. See generally Glover v. State, 9 FLW 2271 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (this court stating that where the defendant has full knowledge of the breach of a plea agreement prior to the imposition of sentence such that the defendant could have readily moved for withdrawal of his/her plea before the sentence, the defendant will not be heard afterwards to complain).

Finally, we find that the tactical decision to plead guilty in this case was not “outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance.” Strickland v. Washington, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2066, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Accordingly, the order on appeal is AFFIRMED.

WENTWORTH and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Torance A. Edwards v. State, 576 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
    …failure to appear is legitimate and uncoerced condition of plea). Further, we note that at the June 21 hearing, appellant was not advised by counsel of any right to try to withdraw his plea; thus this case is distinguishable from Brimmer v. State, 462 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). On remand, given all of the circumstances, appellant shall have the opportunity to withdraw his plea. Should appellant elect not to do so, the trial court is not restricted to the negotiated nine-year sentence; but any sentence…
  • Devard v. State, 504 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
    …eason the court could no longer accept the agreement, Devard should have been afforded an opportunity to withdraw the plea. Hill v. State, 441 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Coy v. State, 404 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Compare Brimmer v. State, 462 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (record demonstrated waiver of plea agreement by defendant). Upon remand the trial court may again deny the motion if the files and records in the case conclusively demonstrate that De-vard is not entitled to relief. However, t…
  • Federico Suarez v. State, 608 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
    …PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See and compare Brimmer v. State, 462 So. 2d 29, 30 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw