ROBERT STRONG, 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.
Appellant's appeal challenging the voluntariness of his nolo contendere plea was dismissed because he failed to raise the issue in the trial court through a motion to withdraw the plea or post-conviction relief motion before appealing.
A defendant challenging the voluntariness of a guilty or nolo contendere plea must first raise the issue in the trial court via motion to withdraw the plea or post-conviction relief motion before appealing.
[1] Although the voluntariness of a guilty or nolo contendere plea is a limited class of issue that may be raised on appeal without prior reservation of the right, a defendan…
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 intelligenceRobert Strong was charged with escaping from a correctional institute, entered a nolo contendere plea in March 1989, and was sentenced to two years in…
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 Withdraw Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Chief Judge.
Appellant, Robert Strong, was charged by information filed in January 1989 with escaping from River Junction Correctional Institute. He entered a plea of nolo con-tendere in March 1989 and was thereafter adjudicated guilty and sentenced to two years incarceration. Appellate counsel filed a timely appellate brief, pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), raising, as its sole issue, the voluntariness of appellant’s plea.
The voluntary and intelligent character of a plea falls within the limited class of issues which a defendant may raise on appeal from a guilty or nolo contendere plea, without having specifically reserved the right to do so. Robinson v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla.1979). As a prerequisite to raising such an issue on appeal, however, the defendant must first file with the trial court either a motion to withdraw the plea, S.C. v. State, 388 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Maralit v. State, 468 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), or a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. Crawley v. State, 539 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). As the appellant in the instant case has not previously raised the validity of his plea before the trial court, we dismiss the instant appeal. The dismissal is, however, without prejudice to appellant to seek the appropriate relief in the trial court. See L.L. v. State, 429 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).
SMITH and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Burns v. State, 884 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…elating to the voluntary and intelligent nature of the plea falls within the limited class of issues which a defendant may raise on appeal from a guilty or no contest plea without having specifically reserved the right to do so. See Strong v. State, 555 So. 2d 950, 951 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)(citing Robinson). However, before raising such an issue on appeal, the defendant must first file with the trial court a motion to withdraw the plea. See Lieb-man. The defendant in this case failed to do so and is thus preclu…
-
Faulk v. State, 567 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…in this case, but . do so without prejudice to appellant’s right to raise the voluntary and intelligent character of his nolo contendere plea, if he so desires, in a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. Strong v. State, 555 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Robinson v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla.1979). JOANOS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Gissendanner v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1979)
- Robinson v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1979)
- In the Interest of: S. C. v. State, 388 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- In the Interest of L.L. v. State, 429 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Crawley v. State, 539 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Ponderosa, Inc. v. Stephens, 539 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Cleveland Richburg v. State, 468 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)