ROBERT PURCHASE, 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 pled no contest to armed kidnapping and carjacking, then appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to withdraw the plea. The court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the withdrawal motion and rejecting appellant's novel argument that a "no information" filing divested the court of jurisdiction.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the plea based on failure to establish good cause. A "no information" is not a nolle prosequi but is instead the same as a "no action"—a termination of proceedings before an information is filed—and therefore does not divest the court of jurisdiction.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to withdraw a plea when the defendant fails to establish good cause.
[2] A document entitled "no information" filed after an information and before a plea is not equivalent to a nolle prosequi.
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“defendant may not be tried under an information that has been nolle prossed, as that information is a nullity and cannot confer jurisdiction on the court”
Establishes the legal principle that a nolle prosequi nullifies an information and divests jurisdiction, which is the premise of appellant's argument
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was charged by information with armed kidnapping, carjacking with a deadly weapon, and sexual battery with great force. He pled no contest t…
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 Motion To Withdraw Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
Appellant was charged by information with armed kidnapping, carjacking with a deadly weapon, and sexual battery with great force. He pled no contest to armed kidnapping and carjacking with a deadly weapon and appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion to withdraw his plea. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s finding that appellant did not establish good cause to withdraw his plea.
Appellant also raises, for the first time on appeal, that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to accept his plea because his file contained a document entitled “no information.” He argues that this document was a nolle prosequi, which amounts to a dismissal or nullification of an indictment or information. State v. Vazquez, 450 So. 2d 203 (Fla.1984); Childers v. State, 277 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973) (defendant may not be tried under an information that has been nolle prossed, as that information is a nullity and cannot confer jurisdiction on the court).
The “no information” was filed after the information, and around the same time that the appellant pled no contest to the two charges which were listed in the “no information.” It was never mentioned in the proceedings below and, as we noted earlier, is being raised for the first time on appeal.
The parties have not cited, and we have not been able to find, any case law or rules in Florida defining the term “no information.” The term “no action,” on the other hand has been defined as the voluntary termination of proceedings by the state before an information is filed. Genden v. Fuller, 648 So. 2d 1183, 1183 n. 1 (Fla.1994); Allied Fidelity Ins. Co. v. State for Use and Benefit of Dade County, 408 So. 2d 756, 756 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (“A ‘no action’ is a dismissal of the pending charges before an information or indictment has been filéd; a nolle prosequi is the dismissal of a pending information or indictment.”). A “no action” serves the purpose of letting a person who has been arrested know that an information will not be filed or an indictment will not be sought.
We do not agree with appellant that a “no information” is a nolle prosequi. From a grammatical standpoint a “no information” is the same as a “no action.” An action is a “civil or criminal judicial proceeding,” Black’s Law Dictionary 28 (7th ed.1990), and an information is a “formal criminal charge.” Id. at 783.1
Our narrow interpretation of what can constitute a nolle prosequi is consistent with Wilson v. Renfroe, 91 So. 2d 857 (Fla.1956), in which the prosecutor filed a motion to dismiss criminal charges which stated that an investigation showed that there was insufficient evidence to prove the case. Our supreme court rejected the defendant’s contention that the motion to dismiss was a nolle prosequi.
Affirmed.
POLEN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur. . We also know from experience that prosecutors use "no actions” and "no informa-tions” interchangeably to give notice that an information will not be filed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Clifton, 905 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…part, and REMANDED. SHARP, W. and PETERSON, JJ., concur. . We note that a “no action” and a nolle prosequi both signify that the state intends to [*177] terminate the prosecution and proceed no further. As the court explained in Purchase v. State, 866 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004): The term "no action,” on the other hand has been defined as the voluntary termination of proceedings by the state before an information is filed. Genden v. Fuller, 648 So. 2d 1183, 1183 n. 1 (Fla.1994); Allied Fidelity Ins. Co.…
-
Lovelace v. State, 906 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…e state. A “no information,” which is synonymous with “no action,” is filed by a prosecutor for the purpose of letting a person who has been arrested know that an information will not be filed or an indictment will not be sought. Purchase v. State, 866 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Because the charging document in this case was the traffic citation, Florida Traffic Court Rule 6.040(b), and there was no reason to inform the defendant that an information would not be filed, we assume that the state intended…
-
State v. Clifton, 895 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…part, and REMANDED. SHARP, W. and PETERSON, JJ., concur. . We note that a "no action” and a nolle prosequi both signify that the state intends to [*518] terminate the prosecution and proceed no further. As the court explained in Purchase v. State, 866 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004): The term "no action,” on the other hand has been defined as the voluntary termination of proceedings by the state before an information is filed. Genden v. Fuller, 648 So. 2d 1183, 1183 n. 1 (Fla.1994); Allied Fidelity Ins. Co.…
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
- Genden v. Fuller, 648 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 1994)
- F. K. G. Co., Inc. v. Keys Bottled GAS Co., 91 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 1957)
- State v. Vazquez, 450 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 1984)
- Wilson v. Renfroe, 91 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 1956)
- Childers v. State, 277 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Allied Fid. Ins. Co. v. State, 408 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)