TYRONE A. WILLIAMS, 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.
Williams appealed his guilty pleas to battery and cocaine possession, challenging the plea colloquy, factual basis for the plea, and his five-year sentence. The court affirmed, holding that these issues were not properly preserved for appeal because they required a motion to withdraw the plea rather than direct appeal.
Issues regarding an inadequate plea colloquy, violations of plea agreements, and involuntariness of pleas must be raised by motion to withdraw the plea and cannot be directly appealed. The trial court's error, if any, in these respects was not properly preserved for appellate review because Williams did not file a motion to withdraw his plea.
[1] Sentencing errors cannot be raised on direct appeal unless the alleged error has first been brought to the attention of the lower tribunal at the time of sentencing or by…
[2] A defendant who pleads guilty or nolo contendere may not appeal from the plea except for specific reserved issues, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, violations of the…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Issues regarding an inadequate plea colloquy, the violation of a plea agreement or the involuntariness of the plea must be raised by a motion to withdraw the plea.”
Establishes the procedural requirement for challenging plea-related issues.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams pleaded guilty to battery and possession of cocaine and was sentenced to five years imprisonment on the possession charge. He did not file a …
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 Violation Of Plea Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
PLEUS, J.
Williams appeals claiming the trial court erred with respect to accepting his guilty plea to the crimes of battery and possession of cocaine and in sentencing him to five years imprisonment on the possession charge. He argues that a proper plea colloquy was not conducted, that no factual basis for the plea was offered and that the court erred in sentencing him to fee years imprisonment. Williams has not moved to withdraw his plea.1
Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b)(2)(A)(ii) provides that appeals from guilty , pleas and pleas of nolo contendere may only be taken as follows:
A defendant who pleads guilty or nolo contendere may otherwise directly appeal only
a) the lower tribunal’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction;
b) a violation of the plea agreement, if preserved by a motion to withdraw plea;
c) an involuntary plea, if preserved by a motion to withdraw plea;
d) a sentencing error, if preserved; or
e) as otherwise provided by law.
(emphasis added).
Issues regarding an inadequate plea colloquy, the violation of a plea agreement or the involuntariness of the plea must be raised by a motion to withdraw the plea. State v. T.G., 800 So. 2d 204, 210 (Fla.2001); Robinson v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla.1979); Angulo v. State, 857 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).
Likewise, an issue concerning a sentence which exceeds the terms contained in a plea agreement is not a sentencing error but instead is a violation of the plea agreement which must, be raised through a motion to withdraw. Williams v. State, 821 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Gafford v. State, 783 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (both holding that after adoption of 1997 amendments to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(i), an issue concerning a sentence which exceeds the terms of a plea agreement is no longer considered a sentencing error but instead is a violation of the plea agreement which must be raised through a timely filed motion to withdraw plea).
The issues sought to be raised have not been properly preserved for review. We affirm without prejudice to the filing of a motion to withdraw plea in the trial court. See Leonard v. State, 760 So. 2d 114 (Fla.2000).
AFFIRMED.
GRIFFIN and PALMER, JJ., concur. . The defendant did file a motion to reconsider sentence, but the order denying such motion is not an appealable order. See Wilson v. State, 846 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Barber v. State, 901 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…sister courts have held that an issue regarding a sentence that exceeds the terms of a plea agreement'is not a sentencing error subject to relief under Rule 3.800(b). Rather, it must be preserved through a motion to withdraw. See Williams v. State, 873 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Williams v. State, 821 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 2d DCA [*366] 2002); Gafford v. State, 783 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); see also Leonard v. State, 760 So. 2d 114 (Fla.2000). Gafford indicates that a motion to withdraw a plea under…
-
Pifer v. State, 8 So. 3d 1154 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…g cap specified in his plea agreement. The postconviction court denied the motion on the ground that Pifer’s claim was not cognizable under rule 3.800(a) and must instead be raised through a timely motion to withdraw the plea. See Williams v. State, 873 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). The court further found that even if Pifer’s motion were construed as a motion to withdraw plea, it would be denied as untimely. [*1155] Pifer’s claim that his sentence exceeds the terms of his plea agreement is facially suffici…
-
Fierro v. State, 10 So. 3d 149 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…669 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Barber v. State, 901 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (“[A]n issue regarding a sentence that exceeds the terms of the plea agreement is not a sentencing error subject to relief under Rule 3.800(b).”); Williams v. State, [*152] 873 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Williams v. State, 821 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). We join our sister courts. Fierro argues her Rule 3.800(b)(2) motion preserved her right to direct appeal. That is not so. As the Florida Supreme Court recently clarified,…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gissendanner v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1979)
- Robinson v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1979)
- Leonard v. State, 760 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 2000)
- State v. T.G., 800 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 2001)
- Gafford v. State, 783 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Lovell Williams, Jr. v. State, 821 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Wilson v. State, 846 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Angulo v. State, 857 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)