STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
RAUL ROY VASQUEZ, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 State appealed a trial court's order that vacated Vasquez's capital sexual battery conviction and life sentence based on a jury verdict, and reinstated his earlier 1997 guilty plea with a 15-year sentence. The appellate court reversed, holding that because Vasquez validly withdrew his 1997 plea, the trial court had no plea to reinstate, and the 1999 conviction and sentence must be reinstated.
The court reversed and held that Vasquez's 1997 plea was validly withdrawn and therefore no longer existed for the trial court to reinstate. Once a guilty plea is withdrawn and accepted by the court, it is as if the plea was never entered, so the 1999 jury verdict conviction and life sentence must be reinstated.
[1] A withdrawn plea is considered as if it had never been entered.
[2] A defendant waives the right to challenge the withdrawal of a plea if they fail to object to the withdrawal and proceed to trial.
Previewing 2 of 4 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Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“When a plea of guilty or nolo con-tendere is withdrawn and accepted by the court, it is as if the plea had never been entered ab initio.”
Establishes the legal principle that a validly withdrawn plea is void from inception and cannot be reinstated.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVasquez entered a guilty plea in 1997 and received a 15-year sentence plus 5 years probation. He later withdrew this plea and proceeded to trial in 19…
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 Ab Initio cases and more on FLexlaw
WHATLEY, Judge.
The State appeals and Raul Roy Vasquez cross-appeals the order disposing of Vasquez’s motion for postconviction relief. See § 924.066(2), Fla. Stat. (2004). In that order, the trial court vacated Vasquez’s March 1999 judgment and life sentence resulting from a jury verdict of guilt of capital sexual battery and reinstated' his 1997 plea, judgment, and sentence of fifteen years’ incarceration followed by five years’ probation. We find no merit in the issues raised by Vasquez in his cross-appeal, but we reverse based on the State’s argument in its appeal.
In ground sixteen of his postconviction motion, Vasquez argued that he did not knowingly and voluntarily withdraw his 1997 plea. The trial court found Vasquez’s argument persuasive because the transcript of the hearing at which the plea was withdrawn revealed that Vasquez was never addressed and never spoke. Whether that was significant or not, subsequently Vasquez had ample opportunity to object that he had not in fact wanted to withdraw his plea, despite having sought to do so as an alternative remedy in his motion for postconviction relief filed after he was sentenced pursuant to that plea. Before the trial was conducted, several plea offers were made to Vasquez. Most significantly, Vasquez’s trial counsel testified that she met with Vasquez sixteen times prior to trial, and he never indicated that he had not wanted to withdraw his plea. Rather, he gave her the distinct impression that he had wanted to withdraw his plea and proceed to trial.1
“When a plea of guilty or nolo con-tendere is withdrawn and accepted by the court, it is as if the plea had never been entered ab initio.” Williams v. State, 762 So. 2d 990, 991 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Thus, there was no plea for the trial court to reinstate. Moreover, as we have outlined above, there was no basis for reinstating the plea even if there was a plea to reinstate.
Accordingly, we reverse the order granting Vasquez’s postconviction motion and remand with instructions that the conviction and sentence entered pursuant to the 1999 jury verdict be reinstated.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
NORTHCUTT and KELLY, JJ., Concur. . Trial counsel testified that she had advised Vasquez to accept the plea offers, but he was adamant about not wanting to have probation as any part of his sentence.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Small v. State, 249 So. 3d 675 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
-
Vasquez v. State, 202 So. 3d 84 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…quez v. State, 61 So. 3d 1127 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (table decision); Doby v. State, 25 So. 3d 598 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Hughes v. State, 22 So. 3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Coughlin v. State, 932 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (en banc); State v. Vasquez, 918 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Shortridge v. State, 884 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Brown v. State, 827 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Harris v. State, 789 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). SILBERMAN, WALLACE, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.…
-
Vasquez v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)…2019) (table decision); Vasquez v. State, 202 So. 3d 84 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (table decision); Vasquez v. State, 90 So. 3d 291 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (table decision); Vasquez v. State, 61 So. 3d 1127 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (table decision); State v. Vasquez, 918 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); King v. State, 911 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (en banc); Sheppard v. State, 907 So. 2d 1259 (Fla. - 2 - 2d DCA 2005); Haynes v. State, 106 So. 3d 481 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013); Tedder v. State, 12 So. 3d 265 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). NO…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 762 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)