DEBRA GRAHAM, 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.
The court reversed the trial court's denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea after sentencing, holding that a defendant may withdraw a post-sentencing plea if denial would result in manifest injustice, and remanded for the trial court to address the merits rather than dismissing based on lack of procedural rule.
A defendant may withdraw a guilty plea after sentencing if the defendant demonstrates that denial of withdrawal will result in manifest injustice.
[1] A defendant may withdraw a guilty plea after sentencing upon demonstrating that denial of withdrawal will result in manifest injustice, notwithstanding the absence of a s…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 defendant should be allowed to withdraw such a plea when the defendant proves the withdrawal is necessary to correct a manifest injustice”
The court cited Williams v. State for the proposition that despite the lack of a specific procedural rule, withdrawal is available upon showing of manifest injustice.
Appellant filed a motion to vacate her sentence and withdraw her plea after sentencing. The trial court denied the motion.…
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 Manifest Injustice cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals the trial court’s denial of her Motion to Vacate Sentence/Withdraw Plea. Appellant did not file this motion until after she had been sentenced. Accordingly, in order to obtain relief, appellant must demonstrate that a refusal to allow appellant to withdraw the plea will result in manifest injustice. See Williams v. State, 316 So. 2d 267, 273-74 (Fla.1975); Scott v. State, 629 So. 2d 888, 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). Because the trial court failed to address the only argument presented in appellant’s motion, we reverse the order of the trial court and remand for further consideration.
The trial court appears to have denied appellant’s motion solely because the Rules of Criminal Procedure fail to specifically provide a mechanism for relief under the facts of this case. While the trial court is correct in asserting that there is no rule of criminal procedure designed to address this particular factual situation, that conclusion, alone, is insufficient to leave appellant without access to relief. See Williams, 316 So. 2d at 273-74. (holding that while the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure fail to set forth requirements for the withdrawal of a plea after sentencing, a defendant should be allowed to withdraw such a plea when the defendant proves the withdrawal is necessary to correct a manifest injustice). On remand, the trial court must determine whether, under the facts of this case, appellant has established that the denial of her request to withdraw her plea will result in manifest injustice.
REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.
KAHN, LEWIS, and HAWKES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 316 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1975)
- Scott v. State, 629 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)