DANTE SMALL, 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.
Dante Small challenged the trial court's denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion claiming insufficient factual basis for his guilty pleas and ineffective assistance of counsel. The appellate court reversed as to the factual basis claim, finding that the trial judge's conclusory statement alone could not substitute for a reviewable factual record.
The court reversed on the factual basis claim, holding that a trial judge's conclusory statement of satisfaction is not a sufficient substitute for a reviewable factual basis in the record. The court remanded for the trial court to reconsider the claim in light of the requirement that some documented factual basis be part of the record at the time of plea acceptance.
[1] A trial court's statement that it is satisfied a jury could convict a defendant is not a substitute for a factual basis supporting a guilty plea.
[2] A factual basis for a guilty plea must be established on the record and be reviewable by an appellate court.
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 mere conclusion to that effect, standing alone, is not a substitute for a factual basis which this court can review to determine its sufficiency”
Establishes that the trial judge's conclusory statement of satisfaction cannot substitute for a documented factual basis in the appellate record
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSmall entered pleas to two counts of a three-count information. At the plea hearing, the trial judge stated he was satisfied that a jury could convict…
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 Factual Basis For Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1020] PER CURIAM.
Dante Small challenges the trial court’s denial of his postconviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse on one ground he raised and affirm without discussion his other assertions.
Small alleges that an insufficient factual basis was established at the time he entered his plea to two counts of a three-count information. He maintains that the factual basis for the kidnapping and burglary charges, had they been adequately challenged by counsel whom he characterizes as ineffective, would have resulted in the trial court’s rejection of his pleas to those charges, which meets the prejudice element of this claim described in Colding v. State, 638 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). The trial court denied his claim, referencing a remark by the trial judge at the hearing in which the plea was entered that the judge was satisfied that a jury could convict Small of the charged offenses. In spite of the language of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(a) that the trial judge must be satisfied that there is a factual basis underlying any plea of guilty or nolo contendere, a mere conclusion to that effect, standing alone, is not a substitute for a factual basis which this court can review to determine its sufficiency.
We do not have the benefit of the complete plea colloquy, which might well establish a sufficient factual basis to sustain the plea and resulting convictions. If that court proceeding only reflects a stipulation between the parties to the factual basis, depositions or police affidavits of record may fulfill the obligation. See Farran v. State, 694 So. 2d 877, 878 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Our record does include a presentenee investigation with a sworn recitation of the facts of the case which adequately refutes Small’s claim; there is no indication, however, that this document was part of the file at the time the plea was accepted, and this report is specifically designated not to be a public record by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172.
We reverse the denial of this claim only and direct the trial court to reconsider Small’s allegation in light of this opinion.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
BLUE, A.C.J., and GREEN and CASANUEVA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Farran v. State, 694 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Colding v. State, 638 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)