REGINALD DAVIS, 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.
Reginald Davis appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to withdraw a negotiated guilty plea to drug and driving offenses. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, holding that Davis failed to establish good cause for withdrawal under Florida law.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion. Davis failed to establish good cause for withdrawal because the plea colloquy transcript demonstrated he was properly advised of the consequences and affirmatively stated under oath that he had sold and delivered the cocaine as charged. Davis cited no statutory or case law supporting his claim.
[1] A trial court's decision to deny a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
[2] A defendant seeking to withdraw a guilty plea before sentencing bears the burden of establishing good cause.
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“The withdrawal of a guilty plea is not a matter of right, but instead, a question addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court.”
Establishes the legal standard that guilty plea withdrawal is discretionary, not automatic, requiring the appellate court to review for abuse of discretion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavis entered into a negotiated plea agreement whereby he pled guilty to delivery of cocaine, sale of cocaine, and habitual driving while license susp…
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 Good Cause For Plea Withdrawal cases and more on FLexlaw
PALMER, J.
Reginald Davis appeals his judgments and sentences claiming that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his negotiated guilty plea. We affirm.
Pursuant to the terms of a negotiated plea, Davis pled guilty to the crimes of delivery of cocaine, sale-of cocaine, and habitual driving while license suspended. In exchange, the State agreed to nolle prosequi three other pending charges, to allow Davis to remain on bond pending sentencing, and to recommend that the trial court impose concurrent sentences of twenty two months incarceration. At the sentencing hearing, Davis moved to withdraw his plea before the trial court imposed sentence. He argued that it would be in the interest of justice for the trial court to grant the motion because he was “unable to comprehend the moral consequences of the plea” at the time the plea was entered. To support this claim, Davis stated that he had not committed the drug offenses and believed “that it would be morally wrong and detrimental to his children’s emotional well-being if their father entered a plea to a crime that he did not commit.” The trial court denied the motion. Davis challenges this ruling.
The withdrawal of a guilty plea is not a matter of right, but instead, a question addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Therefore, on appeal a trial court’s decision to deny a motion to withdraw must be affirmed absent proof of an abuse of discretion. Lopez v. State, 536 So. 2d 226, 229 (Fla.1988); Costello v. State, 260 So. 2d 198, 200 (Fla.1972). Pursuant to rule 3.170(f) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, when a defendant files a motion to withdraw his guilty plea any time before sentencing, the trial court may in its discretion, and shall on good cause, permit the plea to be withdrawn. However, the burden is on the defendant to establish good cause. Gore v. State, 552 So. 2d 1185, 1186 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Brown v. State, 428 So. 2d 369, 371 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). Good cause has been found to exist where the defendant demonstrates “that his previously tendered guilty plea was infected by misapprehension, undue persuasion, ignorance, or was entered by one not competent to know its consequence or that it was otherwise involuntary, or that the ends of justice would be served by withdrawal of such plea.” Onnestad v. State, 404 So. 2d 403, 405 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Davis failed to sustain his burden of proving good cause based on his claim that he was unable to comprehend the moral consequences of his plea. The transcript of the plea colloquy demonstrates that Davis was properly advised concerning the nature and consequences of his plea and that he affirmatively stated under oath that he had both sold and delivered the cocaine as charged. Furthermore, Davis has failed to cite to any statutory or case law which supports his claim. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s ruling. See State v. Brown, 622 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).
Judgments and Sentences AFFIRMED.
SHARP, W. and PLEUS, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Richardson v. State, 821 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…ourt denied Richardson’s motion based primarily on the testimony of Richardson’s prior attorney that Richardson was fully advised regarding the potential for a Jimmy Ryce commitment. We find no abuse of discretion in that ruling. See Davis v. State, 783 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). By the time of sentencing, Richardson’s cases had been reassigned to Judge Lawrence R. Kirkwood. After considering the presentence investigation, Richardson’s prior criminal history, and the testimony offered at the sentencing…
-
Dionne Taylor v. State, 852 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…igurement. The withdrawal of a guilty plea is a question addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Unless an abuse of that discretion is shown, the determination not to allow the plea to be withdrawn must be affirmed. See Davis v. State, 783 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). We have thoroughly reviewed the transcript of the plea dialogue, as well as the transcript of the evidentiary hearing on the motion to withdraw the plea. As we find no abuse of discretion, we affirm. AFFIRMED. GRIFFIN and…
-
Alcides Cabrera v. State, 915 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…essed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Therefore, on appeal a trial court’s decision to deny a motion to withdraw must be affirmed absent proof of an abuse of discretion. See Lopez v. State, 536 So. 2d 226, 229 (Fla.1988); Davis v. State, 783 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). We have carefully reviewed the record in this case, and conclude that the trial court acted within its discretion. AFFIRMED. THOMPSON and PALMER, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Costello v. State, 260 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 1972)
- Lopez v. State, 536 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 1988)
- N.U., Inc. v. T & R Seafood, Inc., 428 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Onnestad v. State, 404 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Gore v. State, 552 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- State v. Brown, 622 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)