D.D.W., A CHILD, 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 who pleaded no contest to cocaine possession under a plea agreement was sentenced to a higher commitment level than promised, then denied his motion to withdraw the plea. The appellate court reversed, holding that when a trial court cannot honor plea agreement terms, it must affirmatively offer the defendant the opportunity to withdraw.
The trial court abused its discretion. When a trial judge cannot honor the conditions of a plea agreement, the judge must affirmatively offer the defendant an opportunity to withdraw the plea. A motion to withdraw need not be timely filed to preserve this issue.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by denying a motion to withdraw a no contest plea when the court cannot sentence the defendant in accordance with the terms of the ple…
[2] When a trial judge cannot honor the conditions of a plea agreement, the judge must affirmatively offer the defendant an opportunity to withdraw the plea.
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“When a trial judge cannot honor the conditions of a plea agreement, the judge must affirmatively offer the defendant an opportunity to withdraw the plea.”
Establishes the core legal rule that trial courts have an affirmative duty to allow plea withdrawal when plea agreement terms cannot be honored.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant pleaded no contest to possession of cocaine pursuant to a plea agreement that provided for sentencing to a level four commitment. The trial …
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
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges the denial of his motion to withdraw his no contest plea. We reverse because the trial court abused its discretion by not allowing appellant to withdraw his plea when the trial court determined it could not sentence appellant in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement.
Appellant pleaded no contest to possession of cocaine pursuant to a plea agreement under which he would be sentenced to a level four commitment. The court was fully advised of the conditions of the plea agreement, but nevertheless sentenced appellant to a level six commitment. The court then denied appellant’s motion to withdraw the plea, find- mg the motion untimely since it followed oral pronouncement of the sentence.
Whether a defendant should be permitted to withdraw a plea is a question addressed to the discretion of the trial court; however, the court’s discretion is constráined by the interests of justice. Watson v. State, 667 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). When a trial judge cannot honor the conditions of a plea agreement, the judge must affirmatively offer the defendant an opportunity to withdraw the plea. Goins v. State, 672 So. 2d 30 (Fla.1996); Rodriguez v. State, 610 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Kiefer v. State, 295 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). A motion to withdraw a plea need not be made to preserve the issue for appeal. Goins, 672 So. 2d at 32.
In the instant case, appellant has demonstrated manifest injustice and an abuse of discretion. He was sentenced to a commitment level greater than that contemplated by the plea agreement without being given the opportunity to withdraw his plea. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that appellant knowingly and intelligently pleaded no contest.1
Therefore, we reverse and remand with instructions to give appellant an opportunity to withdraw his plea.
THREADGILL, C.J., and ALTENBERND and QUINCE, JJ., concur. . We also note that the hearing transcript indicates that the court failed to make the proper inquiry to establish the voluntariness of the appellant’s plea and to determine that it was entered knowingly and intelligently as required by Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.080.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
D.V.L. v. State, 693 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…and with an understanding of the nature of the allegations, remand is appropriate. G.M.K. v. State, 312 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). In this case D.V.L. must be given an opportunity to withdraw her plea to the escape charges. See D.D.W. v. State, 686 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). The burglary charge, for which no plea was ever entered, must be reversed. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. DANAHY, A.C.J. and ALTENBERND, J., concur.…
-
N.J. v. State, 712 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…review of the plea colloquy reveals the trial court did not determine whether N.J. understood the nature of the charge to which the plea was offered and the possible dispositions available to the court. Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.080(b)(1); D.D.W. v. State, 686 So. 2d 747, 748 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); see Brown v. State, 585 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (reversing denial of defendant’s motion to withdraw plea where trial court failed to determine if defendant understood the maximum possible penalty provided by law)…
Authorities Cited
- Kit Goins v. State, 672 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 1996)
- Kiefer v. State, 295 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Reynaldo Rodriguez v. State, 610 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Watson v. State, 667 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)