BRUCE A. RYALS, 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.
Bruce Ryals appealed the denial of his motion to withdraw a guilty plea to second degree grand theft, claiming the plea was based on a misunderstanding regarding whether his prior conviction (with adjudication withheld) would count against him. The court reversed, holding that the plea was involuntary due to erroneous legal advice from his attorney and that he should be allowed to withdraw it or have the plea agreement enforced as he understood it.
The court reversed and held that because the plea resulted from erroneous advice by trial counsel regarding what constitutes a conviction, the plea was not voluntary and lacked a meeting of the minds. The defendant is entitled to either withdraw the plea or have the plea agreement enforced as he understood it, with the State given the option to choose on remand.
[1] A prior determination of guilt, even with adjudication withheld, constitutes a "conviction" for purposes of scoring or sentencing under Florida law.
[2] A guilty plea is not voluntary and may be withdrawn if it is based on a misunderstanding or erroneous advice from counsel.
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“'Conviction' means a determination of guilt resulting from plea or trial, regardless of whether adjudication was withheld or whether imposition of sentence was suspended.”
Establishes the legal definition of conviction under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(2), which includes guilty pleas even with withheld adjudication.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRyals entered into a plea agreement for second degree grand theft that required him to have no prior felony conviction or misdemeanor involving dishon…
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 Plea Bargain Enforcement cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, Judge.
The defendant appeals from an order which denied his motion to enforce a plea bargain or alternatively, to permit him to withdraw his plea. We reverse.
In negotiating a guilty plea to a charge of second degree grand theft, the defendant executed a plea agreement which provided, in pertinent part, that The judge has agreed to withold [sic] adjudication of guilt; 13 months probation; restitution if any based upon defendant’s statement that he has no felony conviction or any misdemeanor involving dishonesty or fraud.
The trial court accepted the plea and withheld adjudication. The subsequently prepared presentence investigation revealed that defendant had previously received four years’ probation, with adjudication withheld, after a plea to the third degree felony of selling vehicle identification plates from junked motor vehicles. Defendant thereupon was adjudged guilty and placed on probation for five years.
In this appeal, defendant contends that in the earlier case there had not been a “conviction” because adjudication had been withheld, and if it is to be considered a conviction, he did not understand it that way and was led to believe by his trial attorney that it would not be considered a conviction for purposes of the plea. Un-controverted testimony of the trial attorney at the hearing on the motion supports this contention.
The trial court correctly held that the result reached in the prior case would properly be considered a “conviction” for sentencing purposes. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(2) provides, “ ‘Conviction’ means a determination of guilt resulting from plea or trial, regardless of whether adjudication was withheld or whether imposition of sentence was suspended.” Since defendant had a conviction for scoring purposes, he was not in literal compliance with his agreement and there was nothing to require the court to honor the plea agreement. See also State ex rel. Owens v. Barnes, 24 Fla. 153, 4 So. 560 (1888) (ordinary meaning of conviction is the determination of defendant’s guilt by plea or verdict.)
The fact that a conviction does result from a plea even though adjudication is withheld does not settle the issue here. It is clear that the plea resulted from a misunderstanding based on the erroneous advice given defendant by his trial attorney. There was no meeting of the minds and the plea was therefore not voluntary. See Costello v. State, 260 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 1972); Folske v. State, 430 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). A trial judge should be liberal in the exercise of his discretion and allow the withdrawal of a plea of guilty where it is shown, as here, that the plea was based on a failure of communication or a misunderstanding. Brown v. State, 245 So. 2d 41, 44 (Fla.1971).
We must therefore set aside the judgment and reverse the order denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea. However, because the long delay may have prejudiced the State in taking the defendant to trial, and since the defendant alternatively requested that the plea agreement be enforced as though he did not have a prior conviction, upon remand the State shall have the option of choosing to enforce the plea agreement as understood by the defendant, or of agreeing to the withdrawal of defendant’s plea.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
UPCHURCH, C.J., and COWART, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Clinger v. State, 533 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…alid under section 948.03(7), Florida Statutes, although not mandated under section 939.01(1), Florida Statutes. The order imposing costs of prosecution as a condition of probation is AFFIRMED. COBB and DANIEL, JJ., concur. . See Ryals v. State, 516 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). . See State v. Byrd, 378 So. 2d 1231 (Fla.1979).…
-
State v. Hossain Rajaee, 745 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…or was influenced unduly and improperly, or if it appears that the plea was entered under some mistake or misapprehension. Forbert v. State, 437 So. 2d 1079 (Fla.1983); Rubenstein; Perez v. State, 596 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Ryals v. State, 516 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). The trial judge’s decision regarding withdrawal of a plea should not be disturbed on appeal, absent a showing of an abuse of discretion. Hunt v. State, 613 So. 2d 893 (Fla.1992); Lopez v. State, 536 So. 2d 226 (Fla.1988); State…1 / 2
-
Watson v. State, 667 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…y entered plea of guilty or nolo contendere is a question addressed to the discretion of the trial court. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.170(f). However, such discretion is not unbridled. Rather, it is constrained by the interests of justice. E.g., Ryals v. State, 516 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Ritchie v. State, 458 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Here, the record fails affirmatively to reflect that appellant’s pleas were intelligent and voluntary. Under the circumstances, we believe that it was error of a federal cons…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 245 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 1971)
- Costello v. State, 260 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 1972)
- State ex rel. A. W. Owens v. Barnes, 24 Fla. 153 (Fla. 1888)
- Folske v. State, 430 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)