J. E. BRITTON, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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.
J. E. Britton was convicted of perjury after entering a guilty plea and sentenced to fourteen months in prison. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, rejecting Britton's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which was based on claims that his former civil counsel had advised him to commit perjury.
The court affirmed the conviction and held that a judge does not err in refusing to set aside a guilty plea when the admitted facts conclusively establish the crime. The court found no basis for vacating the plea, particularly where the guilty plea was entered with different counsel after a complete break from the former attorney.
“We do not understand upon what theory a judge should be held in error for refusing to set aside a plea of guilty upon the admission of facts conclusively and fully making out the crime.”
Establishes the court's core holding that a guilty plea need not be withdrawn when the facts conclusively prove guilt
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBritton was charged with perjury arising from testimony given in a civil case. He offered to plead guilty upon arraignment but was required to wait fo…
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 Withdrawal Of Guilty Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
Cockrell, J.
The plaintiff in error was convicted of the crime of perjury and sentenced to the State prison for fourteen months.
While the record before us is somewhat confused, we find that upon arraignment Britton offered to plead guilty, but the court declined, to entertain the plea until his attorney could be brought into court. Afterwards in the presence of his counsel and after the effects of the plea were fully explained to Britton, he again tendered the plea of guilty, and it was accepted.
Before the passing of the sentence, Britton.moved that he be permitted to withdraw his plea of guilty and to plead not guilty. Upon being examined by the court upon this motion, he testified in effect that his attorney in the civil case, out of which this charge of perjury arose, told him it would be necessary for him to perjure himself in order to win the case, and that therefore he had sworn falsely. He does not claim that his attorney advised him that the false testimony would not be perjury, assuming that such advice might palliate or excuse the offense, but merely that false swearing was essential to the competency of certain evidence upon which he wished to rely.
It does not appear that Britton was induced to plead guilty-upon the advice of the attorney who was alleged to have advised as it were, the commission of the offense; on the contrary he had other counsel when his plea of guilty was entered, - and there had been a complete breach with his former counsel.
We do not understand upon what theory a judge should be held in error for refusing to set aside a plea of 'guilty upon the admission of facts conclusively and fully making out the crime. Pope v. State, 56 Fla. 81, 47 South. Rep. 487, 16 Ann. Cas. 972.
Judgment affirmed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor/' Hocker and Whitfield, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eckles v. State, 132 Fla. 526 (Fla. 1938)…627; Casey v. State, 116 Fla. 3, 156 So. 282; Clay v. State, 82 Fla. 83, 89 So. 353; Corlise v. State, 94 Fla. 1192, 115 So. 528; Nickels v. State, 86 Fla. 208, 98 So. 497, 502, 99 So. 121; Adams v. State, 28 Fla. 511, 10 So. 106; Britton v. State, 68 Fla. 438, 67 So. 142. “Where there is sufficient evidence to raise a doubt as to the sanity of the accused at the time that the plea of guilty was entered, he should, as of right, be allowed to withdraw his plea of guilty, and substitute not guilty. People…
-
Artigas v. State, 140 Fla. 671 (Fla. 1939)…conse [*675] quences of such a plea and the entering of a plea of guilty should not be induced by fear, misapprehension, persuasion, promises, inadvertence or ignorance. See Pope v. State, 56 Fla. 81, 47 So. 487, 16 Ann. Cas. 972; Britton v. State, 68 Fla. 438, 67 So. 142; Clay v. State, 82 Fla. 83, 89 So. 353; Nickels v. State, 86 Fla. 208; 98 So. 502; Brown v. State, 92 Fla. 592, 109 So. 627; Sinclair v. State, 133 Fla. 77, 182 So. 637. It is likewise settled that the law favors trials on the merits an…
-
Sinclair v. State, 133 Fla. 77 (Fla. 1938)…he Criminal Court of Record knew, or upon inquiry learned, that the facts in the affidavit were not reliable and in the exercise of his discretion denied the application, and therefore reversible error has not been made to appear. See Pope v. State, 68 Fla. 438, 47 So. 487, 16 Ann. Cas. 972. We have given due consideration to the case of Clay v. State, 82 Fla. 83, 89 So. 353, where the facts were much stronger in support of the application or motion to withdraw the plea of guilty than in the case at bar.…
Authorities Cited
- Pope v. State, 56 Fla. 81 (Fla. 1908)