STEVEN R. WHITSETT, 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.
Steven Whitsett appeals the denial of his motion to withdraw a guilty plea to sexual abuse charges, arguing the State breached the plea agreement by seeking civil commitment under Florida's Jimmy Ryce Act. The trial court dismissed the motion as moot because Whitsett was ultimately not committed, but the appellate court reversed, finding the issue not moot and requiring consideration of the merits.
The issue is not moot because the defendant's legal argument that the State breached the plea agreement by seeking civil commitment does not depend on whether commitment ultimately occurred, and the defendant still has years of probation remaining under the original plea agreement. The trial court must address the merits of the motion to withdraw the guilty plea on remand.
[1] A trial court must address the merits of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, rather than denying it on grounds of mootness, when the alleged breach of a plea agreement is…
[2] A controversy is not moot if a judicial determination can still have an actual effect on the rights or obligations of the parties, even if some aspects of the underlying…
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“An issue is moot when the controversy has been so fully resolved that a judicial determination can have no actual effect.”
Establishes the legal standard for mootness that the court applies to evaluate whether the trial court properly dismissed the motion as moot.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1995, Whitsett pleaded guilty to 11 counts of indecent assault on a child and one count of sexual performance by a child, receiving 8 years in pris…
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 Jimmy Ryce Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Defendant appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Because the trial court did not address the merits of the motion, we reverse and remand for a determination on the merits.
In 1995, the Defendant pled guilty to 11 counts of indecent assault on a child under the age of 16 and one count of sexual performance by a child. He received a sentence of eight years in the Department of Corrections followed by 15 years of probation. During his prison term, the Florida Legislature passed the “Jimmy Ryce Act,” which approved civil commitment for qualifying sexually violent predators. See §§ 394.910-.931, Fla. Stat. (2001).
Pursuant to the Jimmy Ryce Act (Ryce Act), the State filed civil commitment proceedings against the Defendant when he was scheduled to be released from prison. Consequently, the Defendant spent two extra years of confinement in a special holding facility because pre-hearing release is not available in Ryce Act proceedings. A jury later found that the Defendant did not qualify as a sexual predator under the Ryce Act so he ultimately was not committed.
The Defendant moved to withdraw his guilty plea on the grounds that the State breached the terms of his original plea agreement by seeking the Ryce commitment. The trial court denied the motion after expressing repeatedly at the hearing that it would not address the merits of the motion because the issue became moot when a jury decided that the Defendant could not be committed under the Ryce Act. The Defendant appeals the denial of the motion.
“An issue is moot when the controversy has been so fully resolved that a judicial determination can have no actual effect.” See Godwin v. State, 593 So. 2d 211, 212 (Fla.1992).
In the instant case, the controversy has not been so fully resolved that a judicial determination could have no actual effect. We understand the Defendant’s legal argument to be that the State’s act of seeking civil commitment was the breach of the plea agreement. This argument does not hinge on whether or not he was ultimately committed. Furthermore, aside from any Ryce commitment, the Defendant still has years of probation ahead of him pursuant to his plea agreement.
Therefore, we find that this issue is not moot and remand for the trial court to determine the merits of the Defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Sallas v. State, 593 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1992)
- Godwin v. State, 593 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1992)