ALBERTOINE NORDELUS, 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.
Albertoine Nordelus moved for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule 3.850, claiming his guilty plea to DUI manslaughter was involuntary because he was not informed that conviction would result in mandatory driver's license revocation. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's denial of his motion, holding that driver's license revocation is a direct consequence of a DUI manslaughter plea that must be disclosed before accepting a guilty plea.
Driver's license revocation required by section 322.28(2)(e) upon conviction of DUI manslaughter is a direct consequence of a plea that must be disclosed to the defendant before acceptance of the plea. The trial court's denial of appellant's Rule 3.850 motion was reversed and the case was remanded for an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A driver's license revocation required by statute upon a conviction for DUI manslaughter is a direct consequence of a guilty plea.
[2] A direct consequence of a plea is one which has a definite, immediate, and largely automatic effect on the range of the defendant's punishment.
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“A direct consequence is one which has a 'definite, immediate, and largely automatic effect on the range of the defendant's punishment.'”
Establishes the legal standard for determining whether a consequence of a plea must be disclosed to a defendant.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Nordelus pleaded guilty to DUI manslaughter and DUI with property damage. Neither his counsel nor the trial judge informed him before enteri…
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 Direct Consequences Of A Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
[*911] KLEIN, J.
Appellant moved for relief under rule 3.850, alleging that his plea to DUI manslaughter and DUI with property damage was involuntary because he was not advised that it would result in his driver’s license being revoked. The trial court denied his motion and we reverse.
In his motion, which was denied without a hearing, appellant alleged that neither his counsel nor the trial judge informed him, before he entered his plea, that the court was required to revoke his driver’s license under section 322.28(2)(e), Florida Statutes (1999), as a result of his conviction for DUI manslaughter. Whether a defendant entering a plea must be advised of the consequence of the plea depends on whether the consequence is direct or collateral. A direct consequence is one which has a “definite, immediate, and largely automatic effect on the range of the defendant’s punishment.” Major v. State, 814 So. 2d 424, 431 (Fla.2002) (quoting Major v. State, 790 So. 2d 550, 551 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)).
In Daniels v. State, 716 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) this court held that failure to inform a defendant that his driver’s license would be revoked as a result of his plea was a direct, not a collateral consequence.
In State v. Caswell, 28 Fla. L. Weekly D2492, 2003 WL 22460275, — So. 2d(Fla. 1st DCA 2003), the first district disagreed with our opinion in Daniels and held that the revocation of a driver’s license required by the statute upon a conviction of a crime was not a direct consequence of a plea. The majority in Caswell asserted that our decisions holding that the revocation of a driver’s license is a direct consequence of a plea were contrary to Major v. State, 814 So. 2d 424 (Fla.2002). As Judge Allen’s dissent in Caswell pointed out, however, the Florida Supreme Court in Major, 814 So. 2d at 429, quoted from Daniels and did not suggest Daniels was anything but correct.
Section 322.28(2)(e) provides that the “court shall permanently revoke the driver’s license” of a person convicted of DUI manslaughter. This meets the test of being definite, immediate, and largely automatic. Major, 814 So. 2d at 431. We accordingly disagree with Caswell, as well as the companion case of State v. Bolware, 28 Fla. L. Weekly D2493, 2003 WL 22460271, — So. 2d - (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), and certify direct and express conflict.
Appellant also alleged in his motion that his counsel misadvised him that the trial court could place him on probation following his plea. The record attachments do not refute this claim or the claim that his plea was involuntary. We accordingly reverse for an evidentiary hearing on both issues.
WARNER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Demello Bolware v. State, 995 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2008)…gh the revocation was not discussed in the plea colloquy and the revocation came as a complete surprise to the defendant. Id. at 1134-35. This same sort of fact pattern has been presented to the Fourth District in other cases. See Nordelus v. State, 889 So. 2d 910, 911 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Prianti v. State, 819 So. 2d 231, 232 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). In Major, we cited both Daniels and Whipple with approval in holding that defendants must be apprised only of the direct consequences of a plea and not the collater…1 / 2
-
Ott Cornelius, II v. State, 913 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…egations may constitute grounds for relief and an evidentiary hearing. STEVENSON, C.J., GUNTHER, STONE, WARNER,' POLEN, FARMER, SHAHOOD, GROSS, TAYLOR, HAZOURI, MAY, JJ., concur. KLEIN, J., concurs specially with opin-ión. . In Nordelus v. State, 889 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), we adhered to Daniels and certified conflict with State v. Caswell, 28 Fla. L. Wéeldy D2492, - So. 2d -, 2003 WL 22460275 (Fla. 1st DCA Oct. 31, 2003).…
-
State v. Albertoine Nordelus, 4 So. 3d 1217 (Fla. 2009)…PER CURIAM. We have for review Nordelus v. State, 889 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal certified conflict with the First District Court of Appeal’s decision in State v. Bolware, 999 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), approved, 995 So. 2d 268 (Fla.2008). We have jurisdictio…
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
- Daron Merritt v. State, 814 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 2002)
- Fritz Major v. State, 790 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Freeman Daniels v. State, 716 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)