CALVIN J. AUSTIN, 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.
An Anders appeal challenging a guilty plea to grand theft is dismissed because the appellant failed to reserve his right to appeal when entering the plea, precluding direct appellate review under Florida law.
An appellant who fails to reserve his right to appeal when entering a guilty plea is precluded from pursuing a direct appeal challenging the voluntariness of that plea.
[1] A defendant who fails to reserve the right to appeal when entering a guilty plea is precluded from pursuing a direct appeal to challenge the voluntariness of that plea.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was originally charged with first degree carjacking but entered a negotiated guilty plea to third degree grand theft in exchange for a sente…
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 Elements Of Burglary cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.
In this Anders appeal, appellant challenges his grand theft conviction, arguing that his plea was involuntary. This court, however, is precluded from considering appellant’s direct appeal because he failed to reserve his right to appeal when he entered his guilty plea. § 924.06(3), Fla.Stat. (1995); Norman v. State, 634 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Appellant’s remedy, if any, is to move to withdraw his plea in the trial court.
In any event, there is no merit to appellant’s argument that his plea was involuntary. Appellant had originally been charged with first degree carjacking, but subsequently entered a negotiated plea to third degree grand theft in return for a sentence of 26.25 months. A review of the plea hearing reveals that the plea colloquy was complete. The voluntariness of appellant’s plea was clearly established. Appellant was pleading to at least two cases, one of which was a burglary arising out of his entering a residence in an attempt to hide. Appellant’s questions regarding the offense of burglary related to that separate offense, not the instant case. His questions concerned his disagreement with the elements of the offense of burglary, not the fact that his actions fell within those elements. There is no merit to appellant’s argument here.
Accordingly, the case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
PATTERSON and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Wilmouth Hughes, 756 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…s precluded from addressing the voluntariness of his plea on direct appeal because while appellee was instructed that he had thirty days to appeal, he neither took a direct appeal nor filed a cross-appeal in this case. See generally Austin v. State, 696 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). This court has held that before a district court of appeal can review the issue of voluntariness of a plea, a motion to withdraw a guilty plea and trial court record on that motion are required. See Davis v. State, 652 So. 2d 503…
Authorities Cited
- Norman v. State, 634 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)