BILLY RAY TAYLOR, 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.
Billy Ray Taylor appealed the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which was filed before sentencing. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, finding that the trial judge engaged in coercive plea negotiations by initiating the plea discussion, implying harsher sentences for non-acceptance or trial, and limiting Taylor's options, all of which violated established guidelines and constituted good cause for withdrawal.
The court reversed the denial of the motion to withdraw. Taylor established good cause for withdrawal because the trial court violated established guidelines by initiating the plea discussion, implying harsher sentences conditioned on Taylor's procedural choices, and limiting his options. The trial court's conduct constituted grounds for withdrawal based on threats and coercion.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by denying a motion to withdraw a guilty plea filed before sentencing when the record shows the court engaged in coercive plea negotia…
[2] A trial court must allow withdrawal of a guilty plea if the defendant establishes good cause, which includes threats and coercion.
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“Judicial involvement in the plea bargaining process must be limited to minimize the potential coercive effect on the defendant, to retain the function of the judge as a neutral arbiter, and to preserve the public perception of the judge as an impartial dispenser of justice.”
Establishes the controlling standard from State v. Warner requiring judges to maintain neutrality and avoid coercion in plea negotiations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn March 2002, the trial judge initiated a plea discussion with Taylor at a pretrial hearing. When Taylor declined the State's offer, the judge instru…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.170(F) cases and more on FLexlaw
FULMER, Judge.
Billy Ray Taylor challenges the denial of his motion to withdraw plea, which was filed before sentencing. Because the record shows that the trial court engaged in coercive plea negotiations at the time that Taylor entered his plea, we reverse.
At a pretrial hearing in March 2002, the trial judge initiated a plea discussion. When Taylor indicated he did not want to accept the State’s offer, the trial judge instructed the State that it was not to make Taylor any better offers in the future. After more discussion, the trial court recessed for five minutes for Taylor to think about his decision, and when the court reconvened, Taylor entered his plea pursuant to the State’s offer. During the plea colloquy, the court told Taylor: “if you want a trial, you would be looking at more time than what you are getting this week; do you understand that?” In April 2002, Taylor’s counsel moved to withdraw citing irreconcilable differences. In May 2002, Taylor, through new counsel, filed a motion to withdraw plea, which quoted the trial judge at the plea hearing advising Taylor that he would not get a better offer from the State and the present offer would not be extended again. After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion in July 2002. In September 2002, Taylor was sentenced.
We review the denial of a motion to withdraw plea under an abuse of discretion standard. Gunn v. State, 841 So. 2d 629, 631 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). A motion to withdraw plea filed before sentencing is governed by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(f), which provides:
Withdrawal of Plea of Guilty. The court may in its discretion, and shall on good cause, at any time before a sentence, permit a plea of guilty to be withdrawn and, if judgment of conviction has been entered thereon, set aside the judgment and allow a plea of not guilty, or, with the consent of the prosecuting attorney, allow a plea of guilty of a lesser included offense, or of a lesser degree of the offense charged, to be substituted for the plea of guilty. The fact that a defendant may have entered a plea of guilty and later withdrawn the plea may not be used against the defendant in a trial of that cause.
Under this rule, a trial court is required to allow withdrawal of a plea if a defendant establishes good cause. Caddo v. State, 806 So. 2d 520, 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Upon a lesser showing than good cause, the rule allows the court to use its discretion. Roberts v. State, 670 So. 2d 1042, 1045 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (quoting Yesnes v. State, 440 So. 2d 628, 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)). “Threats and coercion, if established, are grounds that would support withdrawal of a guilty plea.” Caddo, 806 So. 2d at 521 (citing Clay v. State, 82 Fla. 83, 89 So. 353, 355 (1921); Canada v. State, 144 Fla. 633, 198 So. 220, 223 (1940)).
In State v. Warner, 762 So. 2d 507 (Fla.2000), the supreme court delineated minimum safeguards that are to be followed by a judge participating in the plea negotiation process. The court stated that judicial involvement in the plea bargaining process must be limited to minimize the potential coercive effect on the defendant, to retain the function of the judge as a neutral arbiter, and to preserve the public perception of the judge as an impartial dispenser of justice. Id. at 513. A trial court must not initiate a plea dialogue; rather, it may participate in such discussions at the request of a party. Id. Further, “[t]o avoid the potential for coercion, a judge must neither state nor imply alternative sentencing possibilities which hinge upon future procedural choices, such as the exercise of a defendant’s right to trial.” Id. at 514.
The record indicates that the trial court initiated the plea discussion and the trial court’s statements strongly implied that Taylor would receive a harsher sentence if he did not accept the plea at that time. The trial court’s comments also suggested the possibility of a harsher sentence if Taylor exercised his right to trial. As a result of the trial court’s failure to follow the Warner guidelines, Taylor established good cause for withdrawing his plea and the denial of his motion was an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings to allow Taylor to withdraw his plea.
Reversed and remanded.
WALLACE, J„ and DANAHY, PAUL W., SENIOR JUDGE, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lehmkuhle v. State, 20 So. 3d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…r of right if good cause is shown. Robinson v. State, 761 So. 2d 269 (Fla.1999); Luedtke v. State, 6 So. 3d 653, 655 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). If less than good cause is shown, the court has the discretion to allow withdrawal of the plea. Taylor v. State, 870 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Good cause to withdraw a plea has been found to exist when the defendant’s plea was “infected by misapprehension, undue persuasion, ignorance, or was entered by one not competent to know its consequence or that it was otherwise i…
-
Nicol v. State, 892 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…s that, as a matter of law, the trial court was required to permit him to withdraw his plea because he demonstrated good cause. The burden is upon the defendant to'establish good cause. Robinson v. State, 761 So. 2d 269 (Fla.1999); Taylor v. State, 870 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Good cause exists in situations where the defendant demonstrates that his guilty plea was infected by misapprehension, undue persuasion, ignorance, was entered by one not competent to know its consequence, the ends of justice wou…
-
Rappaport v. State, 24 So. 3d 1211 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…considering a motion filed under rule 3.170(f), “a trial court is required to allow withdrawal of a plea if a defendant establishes good cause. Upon a lesser showing than good cause, the rule allows the court to use its discretion.” Taylor v. State, 870 So. 2d 72, 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (citation omitted); Smith v. State, 840 So. 2d 404, 406 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (“[I]n situations where less than good cause is shown, a trial court’s decision will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.”) “In order to sh…
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
- State v. Warner, 762 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 2000)
- Yesnes v. State, 440 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Clay v. State, 82 Fla. 83 (Fla. 1921)
- Canada v. State, 144 Fla. 633 (Fla. 1940)
- Roberts v. State, 670 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Gunn v. State, 841 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- O'Neill v. State, 841 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Caddo v. State, 806 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)