ARCHIE FORTE, A/K/A ARCHIE FORTE, JR., 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.
Archie Forte appeals his convictions for racketeering and conspiracy to racketeer following a guilty plea. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's order striking Forte's pro se motion to withdraw his plea because he was represented by counsel at the time of filing, though it corrected the circuit court's erroneous finding that the motion was untimely.
The appellate court affirmed the striking of the motion to withdraw the plea because Forte filed it pro se while represented by counsel. The court also corrected the circuit court's error in finding the motion untimely, holding that filings by incarcerated pro se litigants are deemed filed when provided to prison officials for mailing. The motion was properly stricken without consideration on the merits.
[1] A pro se motion to withdraw a guilty plea filed by an incarcerated litigant is timely when delivered to prison officials for mailing.
[2] A pro se motion filed by a defendant who is represented by counsel may be stricken as a nullity.
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“filings by incarcerated pro se litigants are deemed to be filed with the court on the date the prisoner provides the document to prison officials for mailing”
Establishes the timeliness standard for pro se prisoner filings under Haag v. State
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceArchie Forte entered a negotiated guilty plea to one count of racketeering and one count of conspiracy to racketeer. In exchange, the State dropped nu…
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 Pro Se Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Judge.
Archie Forte appeals his judgment and sentences for one count of racketeering and one count of conspiracy to racketeer. Mr. Forte entered a negotiated plea of guilty to the charges. In exchange, the State dropped numerous charges against Mr. Forte and agreed to concurrent sentences of eight years in prison followed by ten years’ probation. After the judgment and sentences were entered in accordance with the plea agreement, Mr. Forte filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(¿). The circuit court addressed this motion with three alternative rulings, holding that the motion was untimely, that the pro se motion should be stricken as a nullity because it was not filed by counsel, and that the motion should be denied on the merits.
This motion was timely. See Haag v. State, 591 So. 2d 614, 617 (Fla.1992) (holding that filings by incarcerated pro se litigants are deemed to be filed with the court on the date the prisoner provides the document to prison officials for mailing). Thus, the portion of the circuit court’s order finding the motion untimely was in error. Nevertheless, we affirm the portion of the circuit court’s order which held that the motion, which Mr. Forte filed pro se at a time when he was represented by counsel, should be stricken. See Mourra v. State, 884 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Because the motion was properly stricken, the court should not have alternatively sought to deny the motion on its merits. We thus affirm the judgment and sentences. The order on the motion to withdraw plea properly strikes the motion to withdraw plea and shall not be interpreted as an adjudication on the merits of any claim Mr. Forte may have to withdraw his plea by way of a motion for postconviction relief.
Affirmed.
SALCINES and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 975 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…nce, but we reverse the trial court’s order dismissing the motion to withdraw plea. We direct that the motion be stricken as an unauthorized pro se pleading because it was filed at a time when Williams was represented by counsel. See Forte v. State, 956 So. 2d 550, 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (affirming order striking motion to withdraw plea and noting that the order “shall not be interpreted as an adjudication on the merits of any claim”). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. CASANUEVA and CANADY…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Thurston McCLAIN, 591 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1992)
- Haag v. State, 591 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1992)
- Bennie Frank Smith v. State, 884 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Kasim McDONALD v. State, 884 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)