CHRISTOPHER JEAN-MARIE, 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.
Christopher Jean-Marie appeals the denial of his motion to withdraw a no-contest plea to grand theft auto and aggravated fleeing, claiming he needed to testify in a subsequent murder case without being a convicted felon. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial, finding the plea was made knowingly and voluntarily with no good cause for withdrawal.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the plea. The plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily with no misapprehension, undue persuasion, or ignorance, and the ends of justice would not be served by withdrawal since Jean-Marie retained the right to testify in the murder case regardless of his conviction in this case.
[1] A defendant seeking to withdraw a plea must demonstrate good cause for the withdrawal.
[2] A plea entered freely, voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently cannot be withdrawn based on a subsequent charge.
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“It was not affected by any misapprehension whatsoever. There was absolutely no undue persuasion. The defendant's own testimony is directly contrary to that, as well as the court's observations. There was no ignorance on the part of the defendant at the time he entered into the plea and plea agreement.”
The trial court's findings establishing that the plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered without duress or misunderstanding.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJean-Marie was charged with grand theft auto, aggravated fleeing, and driving without a valid driver's license. He entered an open plea of no contest …
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 Driving Without A Valid Driver'S License cases and more on FLexlaw
POLEN, J.
This appeal arises from a final order denying appellant Christopher Jean-Marie’s motion to withdraw his plea and a final order imposing judgment, conviction, and a sentence of eight years in state prison for grand theft auto and aggravated fleeing. For the reasons articulated herein, we affirm.
Jean-Marie was charged by information with grand theft auto, aggravated fleeing, and driving without a valid driver’s license. He entered an open plea of no contest to the charges. The plea was freely, voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently made. A PSI was ordered and Jean-Marie’s sentencing set for a later date.
Before sentencing, Jean-Marie filed a motion to withdraw his plea. The motion stated that he was charged with second-degree murder subsequent to entering a plea in the case at bar. He argued that, given the severe, life-long impact the murder case might have on him, the “ends of justice would be served” if, and only if, he has the ability to testify in his own defense at his murder trial without being a convicted felon.
After reviewing the details of Jean-Marie’s plea colloquy, the trial court found that there was no good cause for the withdrawal of his plea in this case. The court explained:
It was not affected by any misapprehension whatsoever. There was absolutely no undue persuasion. The defendant’s own testimony is directly contrary to that, as well as the court’s observations. There was no ignorance on the part of the defendant at the time he entered into the plea and plea agreement.
Everything was explained in extraordinary detail to him and acknowledged by him. It was entered not by one not competent to know its consequence, but on the contrary, by someone who was completely competent to know its consequence and to have every possible question responded to, if he had any.
And further, the court finds that there is nothing to indicate that the ends of justice would be served by the withdrawal of the plea. The court finds in fact that the ends of justice would best be served by not allowing the withdrawal of the plea.
The court further finds as to the new case, 05-11741, there’s been some allusion as to whether or not the defendant will be able to testify in that case. The defendant has available to him in 05-11741 all of the rights that he gave up in 05-1749. He still has all of those available to him in 05-11741, including the right to remain silent or to testify, if he so chooses. And if he doesn’t choose to testify, that’s fine, but he’s certainly free to testify in that case if he wishes to.
And the fact that he’s entered a plea in another case does not in any way mean that he doesn’t have the right to exercise his right to testify in 05-11741, if he wishes to do so. So based upon all of those things, the court’s going to deny the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea in 05-1749.
We agree with and fully adopt the trial court’s explanation for denying Jean-Marie’s motion to withdraw plea. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.
Affirmed.
STONE and FARMER, JJ., concur.