MARK DELAHOZ, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed conviction and sentence, holding that trial court properly refused to withdraw guilty plea where defendant claimed he was misled about sentencing range, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's factual determination that no promises were made.
Trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow withdrawal of guilty plea where the court found no promises regarding sentencing were made and the defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered the plea.
[1] Trial courts have discretion to resolve factual issues regarding whether a guilty plea was induced by misinformation or misrepresentation regarding sentencing.
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 intelligence“accepting Appellant's plea only after I was absolutely positive that you knew exactly what you were doing and you were doing it willingly, knowingly, freely, and voluntarily and that you were totally capable of understanding exactly what you were doing at the time.”
Trial judge's explanation of the care taken in accepting the guilty plea
Appellant entered a guilty plea but later sought to withdraw it, claiming he was misled by the court and his attorney into believing he would receive …
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 Voluntary Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm Appellant’s conviction and sentence. The trial court did not err in refusing to allow Appellant to withdraw his guilty plea. Appellant argues that he was misled by the court and by his attorney that he would receive only a ten to fifteen year sentence. The trial court found that no promises were made to Appellant and that no ten or fifteen year offer was ever made. The judge specifically recalled explaining Appellant’s options to him, accepting Appellant’s plea “only after I was absolutely positive that you knew exactly what you were doing and you were doing it willingly, knowingly, freely, and voluntarily and that you were totally capable of understanding exactly what you were doing at the time.”
The trial court has discretion to resolve issues of fact as to whether a plea was induced by misinformation. See Joyner v. State, 583 So. 2d 726, 728 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (‘We cannot conclude that one seeking relief on this allegation alone is entitled, per se, to prevail nor that the trial court lacks discretion to resolve these issues against petitioner.”). We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s refusal to allow Appellant to withdraw his plea. We also affirm as to all other issues raised by Appellant.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Van Hubbard, 751 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 1999)…of operating his or her motor vehicle was a legal cause of the victim’s death and that at the time of the operation of the vehicle, the defendant was legally intoxicated. Therefore, I would approve the First District’s decision in Hubbard v. State, 748 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), and adopt an amended instruction to be applied prospectively that would include the following additional underlined language: 1. (Defendant) drove or was in actual physical control of a vehicle. 2. While driving or while in ac…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Joyner v. State, 583 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)