JOHN ARTHUR PETTIT, 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.
John Pettit appealed the trial court's refusal to allow him to withdraw his guilty plea to armed burglary and grand theft after he failed to appear and testify at his codefendant's trial as required by their plea agreement. The court affirmed the refusal to withdraw the plea, finding the State was irreversibly prejudiced, but remanded to correct clerical errors in the judgment.
The trial court properly refused to allow Pettit to withdraw his plea because the State was irreversibly prejudiced by the time Pettit moved to withdraw, having already made a negotiated plea with the codefendant based on Pettit's failure to testify.
[1] A defendant may be denied the right to withdraw a guilty plea if the state has been irreversibly prejudiced by the defendant's failure to fulfill the terms of the plea ag…
[2] A defendant's failure to appear and testify as required by a plea agreement, when that failure prejudices the state's prosecution of a codefendant, justifies the trial co…
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“Had Pettit moved to withdraw his plea at a point in time when both he and the State could have been restored to their respective pre-plea positions, he would have been entitled to do so. Instead, Pettit waited until the State was irreversibly prejudiced in its prosecution of the codefendant.”
Establishes the critical distinction between Pettit's case and Coon v. State regarding timing and state prejudice
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePettit pled guilty to armed burglary, grand theft of a firearm, and grand theft pursuant to a plea agreement requiring him to testify against a codefe…
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 Prejudice To The State cases and more on FLexlaw
GOSHORN, Judge.
John Pettit pled guilty to armed burglary, grand theft of a firearm and grand theft pursuant an agreement with the State requiring him to testify against a codefend-ant and to take a polygraph examination testing his truthfulness. In return, the State agreed to a downward departure sentence of two years’ community control and to release Pettit on his own recognizance pending presentence investigation.
Pettit failed to appear or testify at the codefendant’s trial because, as he explained:
Plus addicted to drugs. I was in cocaine really heavily out there, intravenously and smoking it; so you know, cocaine got the better part of me.
Admitting that he did not comply with his part of the negotiated plea, Pettit moved the court to set aside his plea and proceed to trial. The court refused, sentencing Pet-tit in accordance with the sentencing guidelines. Pettit now argues that the court erroneously refused to allow him to withdraw his plea, citing Coon v. State, 495 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). As in the instant case, Coon agreed to testify against a codefendant in exchange for probation.
However, unlike Pettit, Coon moved to withdraw her plea prior to her codefend-ant’s trial. We believe this distinction is critical. Here, when Pettit failed to appear at the trial of his codefendant, the State, faced with proceeding without Pettit’s testimony, agreed to a negotiated plea in which his codefendant received probation. Had Pettit moved to withdraw his plea at a point in time when both he and the State could have been restored to their respective pre-plea positions, he would have been entitled to do so. Instead, Pettit waited until the State was irreversibly prejudiced in its prosecution of the codefendant. It is this prejudice which justifies the trial court’s refusal to allow Pettit to withdraw his plea. Parker v. State, 446 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).
However, there are several scrivener’s errors made by the preparer of the final judgment requiring correction. First, grand theft of a firearm (section 812.-014(2)(c)3) and grand theft (section 812.-014(2)(c)l) should be specified as third degree felonies. Additionally, the final judgment should reflect that the $200 imposed at sentencing constituted a fine, not $200 additional court costs as stated in the written judgment. AFFIRMED; REMANDED for correetion of scrivener’s error. COBB and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Homes v. State, 648 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…nes sentence. Even had Homes moved to withdraw his plea, it is not error to refuse to allow a defendant to withdraw a plea where he fails to live up to his part of the bargain. See Abney v. State, 623 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Pettit v. State, 553 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). Homes next contends that the trial court’s reasons for a departure sentence were invalid. The trial court’s reasons were that the offenses constituted a crime spree and showed an escalating pattern. Because all of the instant…
Authorities Cited
- Parker v. State, 446 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Coon v. State, 495 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)