HENRY RICHARD BELL, 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.
Henry Richard Bell appeals his habitual violent felony offender sentence imposed after he pleaded nolo contendere to aggravated battery. The court reversed because Bell was not properly informed of the maximum possible sentence (thirty years) and the consequences of habitualization before entering his plea, and remanded to allow him to withdraw the plea.
The trial court failed to confirm that Bell personally knew he could receive up to thirty years in prison and would not be eligible for gain time, therefore there was no showing that Bell knowingly and intelligently entered the plea. The case is reversed and remanded to allow Bell to withdraw his plea and enter a new plea or proceed to trial.
[1] A trial court must confirm that a defendant entering a plea personally is aware of the consequences of habitualization, including the maximum habitual offender term and t…
[2] A defendant's knowing and intelligent entry of a plea requires awareness of the maximum possible sentence and the effects of habitual offender status on eligibility for g…
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“a trial court must confirm that a defendant entering a plea personally is aware of the consequences of habitualization. This includes the maximum habitual offender term for the charged offense and the fact that habitualization may affect the possibility of early release.”
Establishes the legal standard from Ashley v. State requiring trial courts to confirm a defendant's awareness of the maximum sentence and consequences of habitualization before accepting a plea.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBell entered an open plea of nolo contendere to aggravated battery. The written plea form and trial judge stated the maximum penalty was fifteen years…
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 Knowing And Intelligent Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
PARKER, Judge.
Henry Richard Bell appeals his habitual violent felony offender sentence which the trial court imposed after he entered a plea of nolo contendere to aggravated battery. We reverse and remand this case to the trial court to permit Bell to withdraw his plea.
Henry Richard Bell entered an open plea of nolo contendere to aggravated battery. Even though the state had filed a notice to treat him as a habitual violent felony offender, the written plea form stated that the maximum penalty was fifteen years. The trial judge stated at the plea hearing that the maximum penalty was fifteen years. The trial judge also noted that the state had requested that Bell be treated as a habitual violent felony offender and that that would require Bell to serve a mandatory minimum sentence. The trial judge sentenced Bell to fifteen years in prison followed by fifteen years’ probation as a habitual violent felony offender. The trial court did not have the benefit of the supreme court’s opinion in Ashley v. State, 614 So. 2d 486 (Fla.1993), which concluded that a trial court must confirm that a defendant entering a plea personally is aware of the consequences of habitualization. This includes the maximum habitual offender term for the charged offense and the fact that habitualization may affect the possibility of early release. Ashley, 614 So. 2d at 490 n. 8.
The record in this ease does not reveal that the trial court ever confirmed that Bell personally knew that he could receive up to thirty years in prison and that he would not be eligible for some gain time. Thus, there was no showing that Bell knowingly and intelligently entered the plea.
Bell argues that this court should direct the trial court to resentence Bell to no more than fifteen years. Ashley could be read to require such a disposition because the Ashley court remanded the case “for imposition of a sentence consistent with the terms under which Ashley’s plea was proffered and accepted.” Ashley, 614 So. 2d at 491. Ashley, however, can be distinguished from the instant case because the written plea in Ashley specifically stated that the defendant would be sentenced under the guidelines and then the court sentenced him as a habitual offender. There is no similar provision in Bell’s plea. Bell’s was an open plea, and he was not promised anything. He was misinformed about the possible maximum sentence and was uninformed as to how habitualization would affect his early release. Based on these circumstances, we vacate Bell’s sentence and remand this case to the trial court to allow Bell to withdraw his plea and thereafter to enter a new plea to the charge or to proceed to trial.
Reversed and remanded.
FRANK, C.J., and RYDER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
State v. Wilson, 658 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1995)…SHAW, Justice. We have for review Wilson v. State, 645 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), wherein the district court certified conflict with Bell v. State, 624 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), review denied, 634 So. 2d 622 (Fla.1994). We [*522] have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We quash Wilson. Wilson was charged with robbery on April 26, 1993, and two days later the State filed written notice of inten…
-
Ciccarelli v. State, 635 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…state intended to seek an enhanced sentence under the habitual offender statute.1 Accordingly, Cic-earelli was unaware of the possibility and reasonable consequences of habitualization. See Ashley v. State, 614 So. 2d 486 (Fla.1993); Bell v. State, 624 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). We reverse and remand this case to the trial court to allow the appellant to withdraw his plea and thereafter to enter a new plea to the charges or to proceed to trial. DANAHY, AC.J., and CAMPBELL and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.…
-
Wilson v. State, 645 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…probation. On remand, we direct the trial court to resentence appellant to a maximum of fifteen years pursuant to the terms of his plea agreement. We recognize that this remedy conflicts with that fashioned by the second district in Bell v. State, 624 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), rev. denied, 634 So. 2d 622 (Fla.1994). In Bell, the defendant entered an open plea to the court and the plea agreement stated that the maximum penalty was fifteen years. The second prong of Ashley was not satisfied. The defendan…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ashley v. State, 614 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1993)