JAMES J. MURPHY, PETITIONER,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Florida appellate court granted certiorari and held that a trial court's finding of guilt based on stipulated facts after a defendant's nolo plea attempt failed, without formal entry of a guilty or nolo plea, does not bar appellate review and requires reversal rather than dismissal of the appeal.
When a defendant is found guilty by stipulation to facts without formal entry of a guilty or nolo plea, the appellate court must reverse rather than dismiss the appeal, as no valid plea was entered to bar review.
[1] A trial court's finding of guilt based on stipulation to facts, without formal entry of a guilty or nolo plea, does not bar appellate review and requires reversal rather…
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 intelligence“while this was the functional equivalent of a nolo plea, it cannot be sustained because none of the formalities required for a change of plea was observed”
Court explaining why the stipulation to facts could not substitute for a formal plea change
Murphy was charged with DUI. After his attempt to preserve appellate review of a suppressed motion through a nolo plea failed, his counsel stipulated …
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 Motion To Vacate Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
We conclude that the appellate division of the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of the law in dismissing the petitioner’s appeal from a county court judgment against him on a DUI charge. The basis of the ruling was that the appeal was unauthorizedly from a judgment entered on a guilty plea. See Fla.R. App.P. 9.140(b); Sec. 924.06(3), Fla.Stat. (1983).
The record shows, however, that, just as in A.E.K. v. State, 432 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), after the defendant’s attempt to preserve his right to review the denial of a motion to suppress through a nolo plea proved abortive, his counsel stipulated to the operative facts. Murphy, on his previously entered and unwithdrawn not guilty plea, was thereupon found guilty by the court. As A.E.K. points out, while this was the functional equivalent of a nolo plea, it cannot be sustained because none of the formalities required for a change of plea was observed. And because a nolo or guilty plea was never entered, there is no basis, as the state now contends, for requiring a Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850 motion to set such a plea aside in the trial court. On these facts, therefore, the circuit court was required by A.E.K., accord, C.S. v. State, 462 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 3d DCA, 1985), to reverse the judgment under review before it, rather than dismiss the appeal. It is directed to do so after remand.
Certiorari granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
J.N. v. State, 483 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…2d 274 (1969), the record reflect that the [accused] was informed of and knowingly and intelligently waived the constitutional rights normally incident to a trial.” A.E.K. v. State, 432 So. 2d 720, 720-21 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); accord Murphy v. State, 464 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); C.S. v. State, 462 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). The underlying justification for this rule is that the constitutional requirements for taking a guilty or nolo contendere plea, as established in Boykin, may not be indirectly su…
-
In the Interest of J.W. v. State, 559 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…dere based on the court’s denial of their motion to suppress. See Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969); Williams v. State, 316 So. 2d 267 (Fla.1975); J.N. v. State, 483 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Murphy v. State, 464 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); A.E.K. v. State, 432 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). The State also concedes error in the trial court’s order of restitution because the trial court failed to make a finding regarding financial ability to make restitution, and b…
-
J.C. v. State, 616 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…ial based on a plea of denial. Accordingly, the adjudication of delinquency herein must be reversed and the cause remanded for a trial on the merits. See § 39.052, Fla.Stat. (1991); D.T.H. v. State, 348 So. 2d 1155, 1157 (Fla.1977); Murphy v. State, 464 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); cf. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967); A.E.K. v. State, 432 So. 2d 720, 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). The final adjudication of delinquency under review is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial c…
Authorities Cited
- A.E.K. v. State, 432 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Soliz v. State, 462 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)