IMMER ELIEZER VENTURA, 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.
A Florida appellate court held that a defendant has a right to an evidentiary hearing on a motion to withdraw a plea when filed within 30 days of sentencing under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(l). The trial court's summary denial without a hearing violated the defendant's procedural rights.
A defendant who timely files a motion to withdraw a plea within 30 days of sentencing under Rule 3.170(l) is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on that motion. The trial court's summary denial without such a hearing violated Ventura's procedural rights.
[1] A defendant has a right to be heard on a motion to withdraw a plea when that motion is filed within 30 days of sentencing.
[2] A motion to withdraw a plea filed after sentencing is governed by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(1).
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“Rule 3.170(l) provides that a defendant who pleads guilty or nolo contendere without expressly reserving the right to appeal a legally dispositive issue may file a motion to withdraw the plea within thirty days after rendition of the sentence, but only upon the grounds specified in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b)(2)(B)(i)-(v).”
Establishes the rule under which Ventura was entitled to file his motion to withdraw his plea
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVentura pleaded no contest to three sexually based crimes, kidnaping, and burglary of a conveyance with an assault and battery, and received a 30-year…
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 Adversary Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
POLEN, C.J.
The issue presented by this appeal is whether a defendant has a right to be heard on a motion to withdraw a plea when that motion is filed within 30 days of sentencing. We answer that question in the affirmative and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Immer Eliezer Ventura pled no contest to three sexually based crimes, kidnaping, and burglary of a conveyance with an assault and battery, and was sentenced to a total thirty-year term on all charges on June 8, 2001. Ventura was provided with an interpreter and was informed of the consequences of his plea. He personally affirmed that he understood the terms of the plea agreement as read to him by the interpreter, that his counsel answered any questions he had, and that he entered into the plea agreement voluntarily.
On July 5, 2001, within 30 days of sentencing, Ventura filed a pro se notice of appeal and simultaneously moved to withdraw his plea on the ground that, based on the advice of defense counsel, he thought his only alternative to pleading guilty.was to face life in prison. He claimed he did not know he had the right to an adversarial hearing. The trial court summarily denied the motion and .this appeal followed.
Rule 3.170(f) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure pertains to motions to withdraw pleas filed before sentencing. Ventura filed his plea after sentencing. Thus, rule 8.170(f) did not provide the trial court with" a basis to rule on Ventura’s motion. However, rule 3.170(1) did.
Rule 3.170(1) provides that a defendant who pleads guilty or nolo contendere without expressly reserving the right to appeal a legally dispositive' issue may file a motion to withdraw the plea within thirty days after rendition of the sentence, but only upon the grounds specified in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b)(2)(B)(i)-(v). Ventura did just that and was therefore entitled to file the motion and to be heard on it. .
The trial court never addressed' the merits of the motion at a hearing and as a result limited Ventura’s ability to proceed at this critical stage in the proceedings. See Padgett v. State, 743 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (holding hearing on motion filed under rule was a critical stage in the criminal proceedings.) We hold that Ven-tura was entitled to such a hearing and accordingly reverse and remand for further proceedings cpnsistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
KLEIN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Snodgrass v. State, 837 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…nothing in the record refutes Simeton’s allegation that his no contest plea was involuntary because he entered the plea based on the advice of his counsel that he would serve a prison term of no more than 60 months. Id.; see also Ventura v. State, 820 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (finding that appellant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing regarding his motion to withdraw plea based upon allegation that counsel had [incorrectly] informed the appellant prior to the plea hearing that his only alternative…
-
Geeta Panchu v. State, 1 So. 3d 1243 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…plea is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the issue unless the record conclusively refutes the allegations. Woodly v. State, 937 So. 2d 193, 196 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Snodgrass v. State, 837 So. 2d 507, 508 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Ventura v. State, 820 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). If the trial court does not hold an evidentiary hearing, the allegations of the defendant’s motion must be taken as true, except to the extent that they are conclusively rebutted by the record. Snodgrass, 837 So. 2d at 508. A d…
-
Hulett v. State, 830 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…a pro se litigant mistakenly cited rule 3.170(f) instead of 3.170(£) in moving for post-sentencing relief, the litigant should not have been penalized for such and the trial court should have addressed the merits of his motion. See Ventura v. State, 820 So. 2d 1026, 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)(recognizing hearing on motion filed under rule 3.170 is a critical stage in the criminal proceedings). Hulett’s motion, which raises allegations his plea was involuntary, raises a colorable claim under rule 3.170(£). Fla. R…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Padgett v. State, 743 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)