KENNETH BRADFORD, 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.
The court held that the trial court applied the incorrect standard for plea withdrawal and that the defendant's motion was facially insufficient.
Appellant pleaded guilty to robbery charges and later sought to withdraw his plea based on newly discovered evidence, an affidavit claiming police col…
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 Manifest Injustice Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
[*29] NORTHCUTT, Judge.
Kenneth Bradford appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. According to Bradford, he pleaded guilty to multiple counts of robbery in 1993. In his motion, Bradford sought to withdraw his plea based on newly discovered evidence. He attached an affidavit from Kendrick Cunningham. Cunningham claimed that Adrian Evans, the man who implicated Bradford in one of the robberies, admitted to Cunningham that he had an agreement with the police to implicate Bradford but that Bradford did not commit the robbery.
The circuit court applied the newly discovered evidence standard set forth in Jones v. State, 591 So. 2d 911 (Fla.1991), in denying Bradford’s motion. In this case, the Jones standard is virtually impossible to apply because there was no trial and no evidence introduced. Any determinations as to the nature and admissibility of the evidence would be speculative. We believe that the circuit court should have applied the more appropriate standard for withdrawal of pleas after sentencing, which requires the defendant to prove that withdrawal of his plea is necessary to correct a manifest injustice. See Miller v. State, 814 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Scott v. State, 629 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).
In applying the more appropriate standard for withdrawal of pleas after sentencing, we conclude that the circuit court properly denied Bradford’s claim. Bradford’s claim is facially insufficient because he did not allege that withdrawal of his plea is necessary to correct a manifest injustice. See Williams v. State, 316 So. 2d 267 (Fla.1975); Miller, 814 So. 2d at 1132; Scott, 629 So. 2d at 890. Therefore, we affirm the circuit court’s order of denial without prejudice to Bradford’s right to file a timely, facially sufficient motion to withdraw plea based on the newly discovered evidence.
Affirmed.
FULMER and SILBERMAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Powell v. State, 929 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…injustice. See Lynn v. State, 687 So. 2d 39, 41 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). We conclude that Powell’s motion was facially insufficient because it failed to allege that withdrawal of his plea was necessary to correct a manifest injustice. Bradford v. State, 869 So. 2d 28, 29 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Further, conclusory allegations are insufficient. Rather, a defendant must offer some proof that his plea was not voluntarily entered. Robinson v. State, 761 So. 2d 269, 274 (Fla.1999). That was not done here. AFFIRMED. G…
-
Burns v. State, 110 So. 3d 96 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…d, Burns gave no indication when or how he discovered the evidence or why it could not have been discovered sooner. Furthermore, Burns failed to allege that withdrawal of the plea was necessary to correct a manifest injustice. See Bradford v. State, 869 So. 2d 28, 29 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (holding that Bradford’s rule 3.850 claim of newly discovered evidence was facially insufficient where he failed to allege that withdrawal of the plea was necessary to correct a manifest injustice). Thus, Burns’ claims were fa…
-
Ford v. State, 912 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…“the circuit court should have applied the more appropriate standard for withdrawal of pleas after sentencing, which requires [*389] the defendant to prove that withdrawal of his plea is necessary to correct a manifest injustice.” Bradford v. State, 869 So. 2d 28, 29 (Fla. 2d DCA2004). As was the motion in Bradford, Ford’s motion is facially insufficient because it failed to allege that withdrawal of his plea was necessary to correct a manifest injustice. Accordingly, we affirm the order denying Ford’s pos…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jones v. State, 591 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 1991)
- Williams v. State, 316 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1975)
- Scott v. State, 629 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Miller v. State, 814 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)