DARRYL BAKER, 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.
Darryl Baker appeals the denial of his motion to withdraw guilty pleas in seven felony cases, arguing he was not informed that the convictions could be used to enhance future sentences. The appellate court certifies the issue to the Florida Supreme Court as one of great significance requiring immediate resolution.
The appellate court does not resolve the issue on the merits but instead certifies the matter to the Florida Supreme Court as requiring immediate resolution under article V, section 3(b)(5) of the Florida Constitution due to its significant effect on the proper administration of justice throughout the state.
[1] A defendant may be entitled to withdraw pleas if not informed of potential future sentence-enhancing consequences of convictions.
[2] Failure of trial court or counsel to advise a defendant of potential future sentence-enhancing effects of convictions may render pleas involuntary.
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“he is entitled to withdraw his pleas in multiple cases because he was not informed of the possible future sentence-enhancing consequences of the convictions”
Summarizes Baker's primary argument based on Wood v. State precedent
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBaker pleaded no contest to multiple drug possession and contraband charges between 1990 and 1999 in seven separate cases, receiving various sentences…
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 Involuntary Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Judge.
Darryl Baker appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. He alleges that, pursuant to Wood v. State, 750 So. 2d 592 (Fla.1999), he is entitled to withdraw his pleas in multiple eases because he was not informed of the possible future sentence-enhancing consequences of the convictions. As we did in the companion case of Bismark v. State, 796 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), we conclude that the resolution of this issue will have a great effect on the proper administration of justice throughout the state. Therefore, pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.125, on our own motion, we certify that the issue requires immediate resolution by the Supreme Court of Florida under article V, section 3(b)(5), of the Florida Constitution.
Mr. Baker attacks seven Florida convictions 1 that have been used to enhance the federal sentence he is now serving. Mr. Baker alleges that his pleas were involuntary, and his counsel was ineffective because he was not informed that the convictions could be used to enhance any subsequent sentence. Relying on Bethune v. State, 774 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), and Rhodes v. State, 701 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), the trial court denied Mr. Baker’s motion on its merits finding that neither counsel nor the trial court was obligated to advise him of the potential future sentence-enhancing effects of the convictions.
For the reasons articulated in Bismark, ease number 2D01-2672, we respectfully ask the Supreme Court of Florida to accept jurisdiction for an immediate resolution of the issue of whether Mr. Baker is entitled to withdraw his pleas based on the failure of the trial court or counsel to advise him that they could be used to enhance a future federal sentence.
PARKER, A.C.J., and WHATLEY, J„ Concur. . In case number 90-586, Mr. Baker pleaded no contest to possession with intent to sell cocaine on November 5, 1990, and was sentenced to three years of probation. He violated his probation and was sentenced to nine months’ county jail on August 13, 1992. In case number 92-2356, he pleaded no contest to possession of contraband in a detention facility and possession of marijuana and was sentenced to six months' county jail. In case number 94-291, he pleaded no contest to possession of cocaine and was sentenced to twelve months’ probation. He violated his probation and was sentenced to eleven months’ jail. In case number 97-1801, he pleaded no contest to possession of cocaine and was sentenced to seven months’ jail. In case number 99-25, he pleaded no contest to possession of cocaine and was sentenced to time served.
Mr. Baker also attacked three misdemeanor convictions. The trial court did not address these claims presumably because the motion attacking them should have been filed in county court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bismark v. State, 796 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…d plea form which included this warning. We suspect that after an evidentiary hearing many defendants making this claim might be entitled to withdraw their pleas. Mr. Bismark and Mr. Baker, whose appeal we also pass through today in Baker v. State, 796 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), are merely examples of the many defendants who have taken advantage of the Wood window to raise this issue. Because of the sheer number of defendants making this claim and the amount of time it would require circuit courts to con…
-
McPHEE v. State, 798 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…s. We affirm the order denying relief based on our opinions in Rhodes v. State, 701 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), and Major v. State, 790 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). See also Bismark v. State, 796 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Baker v. State, 796 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). As we have in Major, we certify that we have passed on the following question of great public importance: WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT OR COUNSEL HAVE A DUTY TO ADVISE A DEFENDANT THAT HIS PLEA IN A PENDING CASE MAY HAVE SENTENCE EN…
-
Jones v. State, 796 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…ant can avoid further sentencing consequences, enhanced or otherwise, by refraining from committing new crimes.” Major v. State, 790 So. 2d 550, 551-52 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). See also Bismark v. State, 796 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Baker v. State, 796 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). As we did in Major, we certify that we have passed on the following question of great public importance: WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT OR COUNSEL HAVE A DUTY TO ADVISE A DEFENDANT THAT HIS PLEA IN A PENDING CASE MAY HAVE SENTENCE ENH…
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
- Wood v. State, 750 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1999)
- Rhodes v. State, 701 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Bismark v. State, 796 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Bethune v. State, 774 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)