HECTOR FIGUEROA, A/K/A HECTOR I. FIGUEROA, JR., 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.
A juvenile defendant was convicted and sentenced as an adult after pleading guilty to twelve felonies across three cases. The appellate court reversed because the trial court failed to inform the defendant of his statutory juvenile rights before accepting the pleas, rendering the waiver of those rights invalid.
Yes. The trial court erred in denying the motions to withdraw the pleas because it failed to inform the appellant of his juvenile rights under section 39.059(7) before accepting the guilty pleas. Without such notice, the waiver of those rights was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.
[1] A juvenile entering a negotiated plea agreement does not waive statutory rights regarding the imposition of adult sanctions absent an intelligent and knowing waiver that…
[2] A court must inform a juvenile of statutory rights related to the imposition of adult sanctions and ensure the juvenile voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waives t…
Previewing 2 of 5 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 juvenile may negotiate a plea waiving that right but before the plea agreement may be accepted by the court, the court must inform the juvenile of the rights provided under section 39.059 and insure that the juvenile voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waives those rights.”
Establishes the statutory requirement that trial courts must inform juvenile defendants of their section 39.059 rights before accepting a plea agreement
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Hector Figueroa pleaded guilty or nolo contendere to twelve felonies across three separate cases. The trial court accepted the pleas, adjudi…
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 Juvenile Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Hector Figueroa, a/k/a Hector I. Figueroa, Jr., challenges the judgments and sentences imposed upon him in three different cases wherein he was charged with a total of twelve felonies. We reverse.
Appellant pled guilty or nolo contendere to all of the charges. The trial court accepted the pleas, adjudicated appellant guilty, and sentenced him as an adult within the guidelines. Appellant filed two motions to withdraw his pleas but the trial court denied the motions. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying the motions to withdraw his pleas because the court failed to inform appellant of his rights as a juvenile before accepting the pleas. We agree with appellant’s contention.
The legislature has given juveniles the right to be treated differently from adults and one of those rights is to have the trial court determine the suitability of imposing adult sanctions by considering the criteria enumerated in section 39.111(7) (now section 39.059(7)). Sirmons v. State, 620 So. 2d 1249 (Fla.1993). A juvenile may negotiate a plea waiving that right but before the plea agreement may be accepted by the court, the court must inform the juvenile of the rights provided under section 39.059 and insure that the juvenile voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waives those rights. Sirmons, 620 So. 2d at 1252.
In the instant case, the appellant contends and the record shows that the trial court accepted appellant’s pleas without informing him of his rights provided by section 39.059(7). Since appellant was not made aware of the rights waived by the pleas, he did not have a full understanding of the significance of the pleas and his waiver of those rights was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. Sirmons, 620 So. 2d at 1249; Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.170(j). Therefore, appellant’s subsequent motions to withdraw his pleas should not have been denied. Newsome v. State, 634 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). The procedure utilized by the trial court was improper and therefore appellant’s judgments and sentences must be reversed. Newsome v. State, 634 So. 2d at 252. We, accordingly, reverse and remand with instructions to reinstate the charges against appellant.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
RYDER, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ordonez v. State, 862 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…72, 1374 (Fla. 1st DCA. 1995). In other words, if the allegations in the motion to withdraw the plea are facially sufficient, .an evidentiary hearing is mandatory. [*930] In this case, Ordonez’s motion was facially sufficient. See Figueroa v. State, 657 So. 2d 1225, 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (noting that the legislature has given juveniles the right to be treated differently from adults and that the acceptance of a juvenile’s plea without the juvenile being advised of these additional and different rights render…
Authorities Cited
- Sirmons v. State, 620 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 1993)
- Newsome v. State, 634 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)