MALCOLM MILLER, 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.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed Miller's drug trafficking conviction and sentence because the trial court never formally accepted his guilty plea before denying his motion to withdraw it. Under Florida law, a defendant may withdraw a guilty plea at any time before sentencing if the court has not formally accepted the plea.
Yes. A defendant may withdraw his guilty plea at any time before sentencing if the trial court has not formally accepted the plea. Formal acceptance requires the trial court to affirmatively state on the record in open court that it accepts the plea. Because the trial court never formally accepted Miller's plea, it erred in denying his motion to withdraw.
[1] A plea offer or negotiation is not binding until formally accepted by the trial judge after making all required inquiries, advisements, and determinations.
[2] Until a trial judge formally accepts a guilty plea, either party may withdraw from the plea without justification.
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“Until formal acceptance of a plea, a defendant may withdraw his plea at any time before sentencing.”
Statement of the controlling legal rule regarding withdrawal of guilty pleas
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMiller was charged with trafficking in cocaine in excess of 400 grams and entered into a substantial assistance agreement with the state requiring him…
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 Substantial Assistance cases and more on FLexlaw
SHAHOOD, J.
We reverse appellant’s judgment of conviction and sentence holding that the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea before sentencing where it never formally accepted the plea.
Appellant was charged by Information with trafficking in cocaine in excess of 400 grams. Appellant entered into a substantial assistance agreement with the state. As part of the terms and conditions of such agreement, appellant was required to enter a guilty plea in open court and agreed not to withdraw such plea.
At the change of plea hearing, appellant withdrew his not guilty plea and entered a plea of guilty. Based on appellant’s testimony, the court found a factual basis to support the plea. Appellant agreed to enter into the substantial assistance agreement with the state and as part of the agreement, it was up to the prosecutor to determine whether the statements given by appellant were truthful and whether he was in violation of the terms of the agreement. The court sealed the file and deferred sentencing for 90 days as required under the agreement, but never formally accepted appellant’s guilty plea.
On January 28, 1999, appellant was arrested and charged with possession of cocaine with intent to deliver. At the June 23, 1999, sentencing hearing, the prosecutor determined that appellant violated his agreement by virtue of his arrest and would not certify substantial assistance. Sentencing was deferred until July 22, 1999. Prior to sentencing, • appellant, on July 19, 1999, moved to withdraw his guilty plea 1, which was denied.
Despite appellant’s agreement with the state not to withdraw his guilty plea, we are constrained to reverse under Harden v. State, 453 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) and Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.172(f). Until formal acceptance of a plea, a defendant may withdraw his plea at any time before sentencing.
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(f) provides that:
No plea offer or negotiation is binding until it is accepted by the trial judge formally after making all the inquiries, advisements, and determinations required by this rule. Until that time, it may be withdrawn by either party without any necessary justification.
In Harden v. State, 453 So. 2d 550, 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), this court clarified the meaning of formal acceptance as set forth in rule 3.172(f) and held that “formal acceptance of a plea occurs when the trial court affirmatively states to the parties, in open court and for the record, that the court accepts the plea.” “Until formal acceptance has occurred, the plea binds no one; not the defendant, the prosecutor or the court.” See id. at 550 (citations omitted). Since the ability of all parties to repudiate a negotiated plea hinges upon acceptance of the plea by the court, the rule wisely requires formal acceptance of that plea, rather than subjective or implied acceptance. See id.; see also Bass v. State, 541 So. 2d 1336 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).
Because the court never formally accepted appellant’s guilty plea and appellant moved to withdraw his plea prior to sentencing, we reverse appellant’s judgment of conviction and sentence and remand with directions to allow appellant to withdraw his plea and proceed to a jury trial.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
WARNER, C.J., and HAZOURI, J., concur. . While the issue on appeal was not raised below, we conclude that the issue has been sufficiently preserved under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.172(f).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harrell v. State, 894 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 2005)…that, to preserve the issue for review, a defendant must specify the trial court’s failure formally to accept the plea in his motion. See Harrell v. State, 826 So. 2d 1059, 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). The court certified conflict with Miller v. State, 775 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). We have discretionary jurisdiction and granted review to resolve the conflict. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.; Harrell v. State, 837 So. 2d 409 (Fla.2003) (order granting review). As explained below, we approve the decision…
-
Campbell v. State, 125 So. 3d 733 (Fla. 2013)…esented in this case was in the case of Harrell v. State, 894 [*738] So. 2d 935 (Fla.2005). In Harrell, this Court granted jurisdiction to resolve a conflict between Harrell v. State, 826 So. 2d 1059, 1059-60 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) and Miller v. State, 775 So. 2d 394, 395 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), where the defendants in both cases argued on appeal that the trial judge should have allowed them to withdraw their plea agreements prior to sentencing, alleging that at the time the defendants requested to withdraw their p…
-
Harrell v. State, 826 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…eged or argued fundamental error, and we know of. no other exception to the preservation rule. Therefore, because appellant failed to preserve any argument based upon rule 3.172(f), we must affirm. To the extent that the decision in Miller v. State, 775 So. 2d 394, 395 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), is in conflict, we hereby certify such conflict to the Florida Supreme Court. See Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(a)(2)(A)(iv). AFFIRMED. BOOTH and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur and BENTON, J., dissents With…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Terence Timothy Harden v. State, 453 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Bass v. State, 541 So. 2d 1336 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)