RICKY JAMES SLATER, 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.
Appellant's direct appeal of his nolo contendere plea is dismissed because he failed to file a motion to withdraw the plea in the trial court before appealing, and voluntariness challenges to pleas are not cognizable on direct appeal.
A defendant cannot challenge the voluntariness of a guilty or nolo contendere plea on direct appeal without first filing a motion to withdraw the plea in the trial court.
[1] A defendant's failure to timely move to withdraw a plea on voluntariness grounds in the trial court forecloses review on direct appeal, and collateral attack is the sole…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRicky Slater pled nolo contendere to aggravated manslaughter and aggravated child abuse and received judgments and sentences from the trial court.…
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 Direct Appeal Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PALMER, J.
Ricky Slater appeals his judgments and sentences which were entered by the trial court after he pled nolo contendere to the charges of aggravated manslaughter and aggravated child abuse, arguing that his plea is invalid because it was not freely, knowingly, and voluntarily entered. However, this claim of error is not properly cognizable on direct appeal.
In order for a defendant to challenge the voluntariness of his plea he must first file a motion to withdraw his plea with the trial court; he cannot challenge the voluntariness on direct appeal nor move to withdraw his plea for the first time by the filing of a direct appeal. Griffin v. State, 820 So. 2d 906 (Fla.2002). See also Jones v. State, 636 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)(noting that a defendant’s failure to timely move to withdraw a plea on voluntariness grounds forecloses review on direct appeal and the defendant’s sole avenue of review is through filing a collateral attack). Since appellant did not seek to withdraw his plea before the trial court, we lack jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. See Skinner v. State, 399 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without prejudice to appellant seeking appropriate collateral relief in the trial court.
DISMISSED.
COBB and PLEUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Masis v. State, 245 So. 3d 913 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
-
Aniesha L. Munsey v. State, 867 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Miller v. State, 829 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). GRIFFIN, PLEUS and TORPY, JJ., concur.…
-
Boatwright v. State, 235 So. 3d 968 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…everse the order on appeal and remand for the lower court to consider the merits of the motion. However, to do so here would serve no purpose because, based on our record, the summary denial of Appellant’s motion is appropriate. See Miller v. State, 829 So. 2d 321, 322 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (affirming an order summarily denying a defendant’s rule 3.850 motion under the “tipsy coachman” doctrine because the trial court properly denied relief, though not for the correct reason). Three of Appellant’s four grounds…
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
- Sprague v. Sprague, 399 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Griffin v. State, 820 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 2002)
- Jones v. State, 636 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)