GARY JOE SMITH, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed conviction where trial court denied motion to withdraw nolo contendere plea without holding evidentiary hearing on defendant's claims of intoxication and duress.
A trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing when a defendant moves to withdraw a nolo contendere plea and presents grounds such as intoxication, duress, and lack of commission of the offense.
[1] A trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing on a defendant's motion to withdraw a nolo contendere plea when the motion asserts sufficient grounds including intoxica…
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 intelligenceGary Joe Smith pleaded nolo contendere to two counts of attempted sexual battery on a child under twelve. Before sentencing, he moved pro se to withdr…
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 Intoxication Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Gary Joe Smith was convicted upon his plea of nolo contendere to two counts of attempted sexual battery on a child less than twelve years of age. §§ 777.04(4) and 794.011(2), Fla.Stat. (1987). He contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw the plea and proceed to jury trial without affording him an evidentiary hearing. See Rule 3.170(f), Fla.R. Crim.P. The motion, made pro se1 prior to the imposition of sentence, asserted essentially that when the plea was entered he had been drinking a substantial quantity of liquor, that he “had drank too much,” that he was scared and under much stress and duress, that he did not commit the offenses charged, and that he wanted a jury trial. Smith also asserted that he had witnesses who could testify that he was drinking.
We conclude that the grounds of the motion were sufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing at which the defendant could present testimony in support of his contentions. See Yesnes v. State, 440 So. 2d 628, 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
Accordingly, the cause is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
ERVIN, NIMMONS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur. . The defendant personally requested the court to permit him to withdraw the plea. The public defender representing appellant stated he was not in position to make any comment on the defendant’s motion at that time.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hobbs v. DON Mealey Chevrolet, Inc., 642 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…a. 5th DCA 1992), approved, 620 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 1993); Jasper v. Zara, 595 So. 2d 1075, 1075-76 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Milberg Factors, Inc. v. Greenbaum, 585 So. 2d 1089, 1091-92 (Fla. [*1153] 3d DCA 1991); MacKenzie Insurance Agencies v. ATF Lines, 550 So. 2d 174,. 175-76 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Newton v. Bryan, 433 So. 2d 577, 578-79 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). Specifically, the affidavit established that AFSLIC neither engaged in business, nor maintained an office, in the state of Florida. See § 48.193(1)(a), Fla.St…
-
Sanders v. State, 662 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…A 1992), relevant to the alleged threats and coercion by the codefendant. “[T]he grounds of the motion were sufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing at which [Ms. Sanders] could present testimony in support of h[er] contentions.” Smith v. State, 550 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). If the plea was entered as a result of threats and coercion from her codefendant, it was not freely and voluntarily entered. On remand, the circuit court, in its discretion, is free to permit Ms. Sanders to withdraw her plea and…
-
Passy v. Lewis, 553 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…a preponderance of the evidence, that appellants were subject to jurisdiction in this state pursuant to those statutes. See Jones v. Jack Maxton Chevrolet, Inc., 484 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) and MacKenzie Insurance Agencies, Inc. v. ATF Lines, 550 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Appellees clearly failed to meet their burden in this case. Thus, the trial court erred in denying appellants’ motions. Reversed. SHIVERS, C.J., and WENTWORTH, J., concur.…
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
- Yesnes v. State, 440 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)