JOSEPH CHRISTE WEIDMANN, 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.
A defendant is entitled to withdraw a plea if misled by counsel about the consequences of that plea, such as parole eligibility.
Appellant pleaded no contest to sexual battery charges after being advised by counsel that he would be eligible for "almost immediate" parole. In fact…
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 Guidelines Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Acting Chief Judge.
Joseph Weidmann appeals the summary denial of his postconviction relief motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. He raises several grounds, only one of which has merit.
Weidmann entered pleas of no contest and was sentenced under the guidelines on two counts of sexual battery. He contends that his pleas were not knowingly and voluntarily made because his court appointed counsel erroneously advised him that if Weidmann entered pleas to the charges, he would be eligible for an “almost immediate” parole. In fact, since Weidmann received a guidelines sentence, he was not eligible for parole. § 921.001(10), Fla.Stat. (1983).
The record furnished us does not refute Weidmann’s contention on this point. To the contrary, it contains a recent letter from the court appointed attorney that tends to support Weidmann’s allegation.
While a defendant may not withdraw his voluntary plea solely because the sentence is not what his attorney led him to expect, he is entitled to rely on counsel’s representations. If he is misled by counsel about the consequences of a plea, he should be permitted to withdraw that plea. See Ray v. State, 480 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Lepper v. State, 451 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Trenary v. State, 453 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), rev. denied 486 So. 2d 598 (1986).
Accordingly, we remand this case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing to determine if Weidmann’s pleas were induced by his counsel’s representations regarding parole. If the trial court decides in Weidmann’s favor, it should afford him the opportunity to withdraw his pleas. Any party aggrieved by the subsequent action of the trial court must file a timely notice of appeal to obtain further appellate review.
CAMPBELL and HALL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ricardo v. State, 647 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…defendant’s guilty plea is considered involuntary if it is induced by a defense counsel’s promise which is not kept, and a defendant may withdraw his plea if he was misled and induced to plead by his counsel’s mistaken advice. See Weidmann v. State, 523 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Shell v. State, 501 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Accordingly, the ease is reversed and remanded for the court to reconsider the defendant’s motion after conducting an eviden-tiary hearing regarding the allegations in the mot…
-
Smith v. State, 556 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…rt’s finding that habitual offender status was appropriate. There is no indication that appellant was given an opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea upon learning that the trial court intended to impose an enhanced sentence. In Weidmann v. State, 523 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), this court reversed the summary denial of a motion for postconviction relief and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine if Weidmann’s pleas were induced by his counsel’s representations regarding parole, stating: While…
-
Joyner v. State, 583 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…counsel’s misleading representations as to the consequences of the plea. See, e.g., Ramsey v. State, 408 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), rev. denied, 415 So. 2d 1361 (Fla.1982); Tarpley v. State, 566 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Weidmann v. State, 523 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Shell v. State, 501 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Ray v. State, 480 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). We note that in each instance the appellate court was reviewing a summary disposition by the trial court. In our judgment neit…
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
- RAY v. State, 480 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Lepper v. State, 451 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Basso v. Lugo, 453 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)