ROBERT MCCRAY, 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.
Robert McCray appeals his conviction for burglary and petit theft, arguing the trial court erroneously admitted a letter in which he offered to plead guilty in exchange for a furlough to visit his dying mother. The appellate court reversed, holding that plea offers are inadmissible under Florida law regardless of whether they are unsolicited.
The court held that the letter constituted an inadmissible plea offer under Florida Statute § 90.410 and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(h), and reversed the conviction because the admission of the letter was not harmless error. The court did not address the discovery violation issue as it was rendered moot by the reversal.
[1] A statement made in connection with a plea or an offer to plead is inadmissible at trial.
[2] An unsolicited and self-initiated communication inviting a plea offer cannot be used against the defendant.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 statement made in connection with a plea or an offer to plead is inadmissible at trial.”
Establishes the fundamental evidentiary rule prohibiting admission of plea-related statements under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcCray was charged with burglary (count 1) and petit theft (count 2). Shortly before trial, he wrote a letter to the state attorney offering to plead …
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 Richardson Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
GREEN, Judge.
The defendant, Robert McCray, appeals the trial court’s judgment and sentence adjudicating him guilty of burglary (count 1) and petit theft (count 2) and sentencing him as a habitual felony offender and prison releasee reoffender to fifteen years of imprisonment on count 1 and to time served on count 2. We reverse.
McCray contends that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence the following letter written by him and sent to the state attorney shortly before trial.
Yes! I would like to make a change of plea,- I’ll plea guilty to both counts, only if you grant me a furlow [sic] to see my (mother) who is dieing [sic] of (bone cancer) before I am set [sic] to prison? I understand by this plea I am giving up all my right to a trial.... Please contact me as soon as possible.
A statement made in connection with a plea or an offer to plead is inadmissible at trial. See § 90.410, Fla. Stat. (1997); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.172(h). In Russell v. State, 614 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), the First District held that even an unsolicited and self-initiated communication inviting the state attorney to accept a plea offer could not be used against the offering defendant pursuant to section 90.410 and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(h). The First District concluded that the defendant’s offer to plead guilty in return for concessions fell under the rule prohibiting the admission of such statements and should have been excluded from evidence. See Russell, 614 So. 2d at 612.
We find the rationale of Russell applicable to our case. McCray’s letter was no more than an offer to negotiate a plea in return for concessions. Since we cannot conclude that the admission of this letter was harmless error, we reverse.
McCray also contends that a telephone call said to have been made by him to the alleged victim should not have been received in evidence and claims a discovery violation based upon the state’s failure to timely notify his attorney of the call. The trial court refused to conduct a Richardson hearing regarding this discovery violation, which was in error. See Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971). However, since a reversal is required based on the admission of the plea offer letter, this point is rendered moot.
We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings.
THREADGILL, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Calabro v. State, 995 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 2008)…plea discussions while Cal-abro involves the initiation of plea discussions by the defendant. Calabro also asserts the Third District’s decision conflicts with the holdings in Debiasio v. State, 789 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); McCray v. State, 760 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); and Russell v. [*312] State, 614 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). He notes that, as in his case, all three of these cases involved initial and unsolicited communications by defendants to the State offering to plead, and, in the pr…1 / 3
-
Debiasio v. State, 789 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…ohibited by section 90.410. See Russell v. State, 614 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)(unsolicited letter to the prosecutor offering to plead guilty in exchange for certain concessions held inadmissible under section 90.410). See also McCray v. State, 760 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Therefore, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings. FARMER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur. . For example, one testing the constitutionality of the statute under which the defendant is charged, testing…
-
Hill v. State, 768 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…into evidence. We recognize that the letter is not an express offer to plead in exchange for drug treatment. If it were, there would be no question that it was inadmissible. See § 90.410, Fla. Stat. (1997); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.172(h); McCray v. State, 760 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). There is, however, little question that the letter is an attempt by an unsophisticated defendant to negotiate with the judge. In order for evidence to be admissible, it must “be relevant to a material issue other than propensity…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- Orthenell Alfredo Russell v. State, 614 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)