EDWARD J. MOTTA, 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.
Edward Motta appealed his guilty pleas to felony battery and aggravated battery, arguing the trial court erred by rejecting his guilty-in-best-interest plea after initially accepting it. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that Motta failed to preserve the issue for appeal by neither expressly reserving the right to appeal nor filing a motion to withdraw the plea.
The court affirmed because Motta failed to preserve the right to appeal. Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b)(2)(A) requires either an express reservation of the right to appeal or a motion to withdraw the plea to preserve such issues, neither of which occurred in the trial court record or transcript.
[1] A defendant must expressly reserve the right to appeal a guilty plea for appellate review of issues not related to a violation of a plea agreement or an involuntary plea.
[2] A defendant must file a motion to withdraw a plea to preserve for appeal issues related to a violation of a plea agreement or an involuntary plea.
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“Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b)(2)(A) allows for a defendant to appeal from a guilty or nolo contendere plea for reasons including those applicable to this case: (I) the right to appeal is expressly reserved or (ii) in the case of the violation of a plea agreement or involuntary plea, the issue is preserved by a motion to withdraw.”
Establishes the legal requirements for preserving appellate rights in guilty plea cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMotta pleaded guilty in his best interest to charges of felony battery and aggravated battery. The trial court initially accepted the plea but then re…
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 No Contest Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Edward Motta appeals from pleas of guilty to, charges of Felony Battery and Aggravated Battery on the ground that the trial court erred by rejecting his guilty in his best interest plea once it had been accepted. Because Motta failed to preserve his right to appeal, we affirm.
Appellant pleaded guilty in his best interest to charges of Felony Battery and Aggravated Battery. Following a recitation of the factual bases for the charges, the trial court accepted .appellant’s plea of guilty to both counts. Subsequent to this acceptance, the trial court requested that appellant admit to the factual bases. Appellant’s counsel responded that, since this was a plea to the court and not a plea agreement, appellant would like to plead no contest and would agree that if,the facts were presented to a jury he could be found guilty of each charge. The trial court refused to accept a no contest plea based on the severity of the factual bases, but would accept a plea of guilty. Appellant’s counsel stated he would plead guilty as a plea in his best interest. Indicating the inappropriateness of either a no contest plea or a guilty plea in his best interest, the court requested that he enter a guilty plea or proceed to trial. Appellant then stated he pleaded, guilty, and the trial court entered the plea.
Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b)(2)(A) allows for a defendant to appeal from a guilty or nolo contendere plea for reasons including those applicable to this case: (I) the right to appeal is expressly reserved or (ii) in the case of the violation of a plea agreement or involuntary plea, the issue is preserved by a motion to withdraw. In this case, neither the trial court record nor the transcript indicate any expressed reservation by the appellant; further, no motion to withdraw plea was made on the record.
Therefore, the issue is not properly preserved for review, requiring that this Court affirm. See Harriel v. State, 710 So. 2d 102, 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)(“Recently, in Thompson v. State, 708 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), we held that the preservation requirements of section 9.140(b)(2)(B) and (d) are not jurisdictional .... ”)(en banc).
AFFIRMED.
GUNTHER, STEVENSON and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Dameion Harriel v. State, 710 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Thompson v. State, 708 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)