EMMANUEL LUBIN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Emmanuel Lubin appeals the denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis, which sought to withdraw his nolo contendere plea to drug trafficking charges. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirms the trial court's denial, finding that Lubin's claims lack factual support in the record.
Lubin is not entitled to coram nobis relief. The record refutes his claims that he did not understand English or the charges against him. While the court assumes without deciding the cognizability of such claims, the plea colloquy was sufficient because the judge had heard two days of testimony establishing a factual basis for the plea prior to accepting it.
[1] A writ of error coram nobis is not available to challenge a plea colloquy for a mere irregularity without more.
[2] A trial court may rely on evidence presented during trial, including opening statements and witness testimony, to establish a factual basis for a nolo contendere plea.
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 irregularity in the plea colloquy is not, without more, a basis for coram nobis relief.”
Establishes the legal standard that formal defects in the plea colloquy must be accompanied by additional showing to warrant coram nobis relief.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLubin entered a nolo contendere plea while maintaining innocence to conspiracy to traffic in cocaine and trafficking in cocaine. Adjudication was with…
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
COPE, J.
Emmanuel Lubin appeals an order denying his petition for writ of error coram nobis. We affirm.
During trial, defendant-appellant Lubin entered a plea of nolo contendere, while maintaining his innocence, to the charges of conspiracy to traffic in cocaine and trafficking in cocaine. Adjudication was withheld and he was sentenced to one year of probation, which he has completed.
On May 3, 1999, defendant filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis, seeking to withdraw his plea. The trial court denied the motion and this appeal follows.
Defendant contends that he does not understand the English language and because there was no French interpreter present, he did not understand the plea proceedings. For present purposes we assume, without deciding, that such a claim is cognizable on coram nobis. This claim is refuted by the record. During the plea, defendant personally assured the trial court that he understood the proceedings, and defendant’s counsel stated that defendant “knows English perfectly.”
Defendant contends that he did not know the charges to which he entered his plea. We again assume, without deciding, that such a claim is cognizable on coram nobis. This, too, is refuted by the record. Defendant was already in the middle of trial, with the assistance of counsel. Plainly by that point defendant knew what the pending charges were.
Defendant argues that the plea colloquy is deficient because it fails to explicitly set forth a factual basis for the plea. A mere irregularity in the plea colloquy is not, without more, a basis for coram nobis relief. See State v. Fox, 659 So. 2d 1324, 1327 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). Furthermore, the plea colloquy is sufficient. The judge took this plea after two days of trial, and had heard not only the State’s opening statement, but witness testimony as well. In the portion of the plea colloquy dealing with the prima facie case, the court said, “I have heard the nature of the case during the last couple of days of trial.... ” The applicable rule requires that in accepting a plea, “the trial judge shall be satisfied that the plea is voluntarily entered and that there is a factual basis for it.” Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.172(a). The trial judge had been listening to the factual basis for two days, prior to the entry of this plea. The defendant makes no particularized claim that a factual basis did not exist, but only -objects to the form of the plea colloquy.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Griffin v. State, 114 So. 3d 890 (Fla. 2013)…rule also provides that “[f]ail-ure to follow any of the procedures in this rule shall not render a plea void absent a showing of prejudice.” Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.172Q). Mere irregularity in the plea colloquy is not a basis for relief. Lubin v. State, 760 So. 2d 241, 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Griffin cites two errors in the plea colloquy that resulted in alleged prejudice.6 While the statements that Griffin cites may have constituted error, Griffin suffered no prejudice from them. See Wuornos v. State, 676 So. 2…
-
Elba Antonia Altamirano v. State, 817 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…t to aggravated battery with a weapon .... Defendant raised no objection to this finding. We have read the arrest affidavit to which the trial judge alluded and find that it does, in fact, set forth a factual basis for the plea. See Lubin v. State, 760 So. 2d 241, 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Next, Defendant alleges that she did not understand the nature of the charges for which the plea was tendered. However, Defendant does not explain what it was about her charges that she did not understand. Such a general cl…
Authorities Cited
- State v. A.J. FOX, 659 So. 2d 1324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)