DONALD GRAGGS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Plea Colloquy cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
By way of a post-conviction motion, made pursuant to Rule 3.850, Fla. R.Crim. P., the appellant seeks to challenge his conviction and habitual offender sentence entered after a plea on the grounds that he was not made aware of and did not understand the consequences of a plea which resulted in the imposition of a habitual offender sentence. Appellant’s assertion, however, is belied by the transcript of the plea colloquy which reveals that, in accordance with Ashley v. State, 614 So. 2d 486 (Fla.1993), the appellant and his counsel were provided with notice of the state’s intention to seek an enhanced penalty pursuant to section 775.084, Fla. Stat. (1994) in advance of the plea. Additionally, the trial court, confirmed that appellant was aware of and understood the reasonable consequences of his plea to an enhanced sentence.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Murphy v. Int'l Robotic Sys., Inc., 766 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 2000)…h DCA 1995), to the extent that it stands for the proposition that counsel may not use the terms "liar” or "lied” regarding a witness when there is record support to question the witness's credibility. . We disapprove Tremblay v. Santa Rosa County, 688 So. 2d 985, 988 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), and Bullock v. Branch, 130 So. 2d 74, 77 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961), to the extent that those decisions stand for the proposition that a complaining party need not establish the harmfulness of improper, but unobjected-to, closing…
-
Bocher v. Glass, 874 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…nd even set up the jury box as a prop for the “magic button” and the $6 million. “Golden rule” arguments are improper because they depend upon inflaming the passions of the jury and inducing fear and self interest. See Tremblay v. Santa Rosa County, 688 So. 2d 985, 987 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). The “magic button” argument had the same effect. If jurors are to remain fair decision-makers, the trial court must guard against a deliberate act of counsel that serves to put the jury center stage in the drama that should…
-
City OF Orlando v. Pineiro, 66 So. 3d 1064 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…5th DCA 1997). . A golden rule argument is improper because it depends upon "inflaming the passions of the jury and inducing fear and self interest.” Bocher v. Glass, 874 So. 2d 701, 703 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); see also Tremblay v. Santa Rosa County, 688 So. 2d 985, 987 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). “The classic Golden Rule argument specifically requests the jurors to imagine themselves as the injured party, and to award damages as if they were the injured party.” SDG Dadeland Assocs., Inc. v. Anthony, 979 So. 2d 997,…
Previewing 3 of 7 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)