ROBERT GENE BRUCE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 2008-10-29
No. 1D07-2801
BARFIELD and ALLEN, JJ., concur.
993 So. 2d 155 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2008) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.


Holding

A defendant may challenge a felony driving while license suspended conviction on direct appeal, even after a negotiated plea, if the conviction is based on predicate offenses that lacked the required knowledge element, constituting fundamental error.


Headnotes

[1] A conviction for felony driving while license suspended may be reversed on direct appeal as fundamental error, even when based on a negotiated plea, if the predicate offe…

[2] A defendant may raise fundamental error on direct appeal, despite failing to preserve the issue for review, when the conviction violates established precedent regarding s…

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

Facts & Procedural History

Appellant pled guilty to felony driving while license suspended based on two prior convictions. One predicate conviction was under a prior version of …

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.


Opinion of the Court
THOMAS, J.

THOMAS, J.

Appellant appeals his conviction for driving while license suspended (DWLS) for a third time, a third-degree felony under section 322.34(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2006). We reverse.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant pled guilty to felony DWLS under section 322.34(2)(c), Florida Statutes. In return for the plea, the State agreed to nolle prosse the two additional counts with which Appellant was charged. This was therefore a negotiated plea rather than an open plea. Appellant did not preserve any issues for appeal, but now argues for the first time on direct appeal that his conviction violates his constitutional right to due process under Thompson v. State, 887 So. 2d 1260 (Fla.2004).

In Thompson, the Florida Supreme Court found that the defendant’s conviction for felony DWLS under section 322.34(2)(c), Florida Statutes, had to be reversed. Id. at 1266.

Thompson’s two predicate convictions were obtained under the pre-1997 version of the statute, which did not include the knowledge element. Id. at 1265.

Due to the 1997 amendment, “Thompson pled to an offense for which the State could not demonstrate all of the elements, i.e., two prior convictions of DWLS with knowledge that the license was canceled, suspended, or revoked.” Id.

Accordingly, Thompson’s felony conviction had to be reversed since it failed to satisfy federal due process requirements. Id. at 1266.

Here, the State challenges Appellant’s ability to directly appeal his guilty plea under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b)(2)(A), which limits the grounds on which a guilty plea can be appealed. Ac cordingly, the State has filed a motion to dismiss Appellant’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Because of the manner in which Appellant was charged, the count to which he entered his guilty plea supported only a misdemeanor conviction, in that one of the two predicate offenses upon which the State relied occurred prior to 1997, when the statute did not include the required element of knowledge. See Thompson, 887 So. 2d at 1265-66. Recognizing this, the State concedes that Appellant would be entitled to relief from his conviction on this count, as a matter of fundamental error, had he been convicted at trial or entered an open plea. In light of this fundamental error, we reverse Appellant’s conviction for felony DWLS, even though Appellant entered a negotiated plea.

Recently, in Miller v. State, 988 So. 2d 138, 139 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), this court held that where the record affirmatively demonstrates that a defendant could not have committed the crime to which he entered a guilty plea, then fundamental error has occurred, and the defendant’s right to appeal that error is not waived upon entry of a negotiated plea.

We agree with the dissenting opinion in Miller which notes the proposition that fundamental error can be waived when a defendant enters a negotiated plea. Id. at 140 (Allen, J., dissenting) (citing Guynn v. State, 861 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Novaton v. State, 634 So. 2d 607 (Fla.1994)).

However, we are constrained to reverse Appellant’s conviction by this court’s decision in Miller. See In re Rule 9.331, Determination of Causes by a District Court of Appeal En Banc, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 416 So. 2d 1127, 1128 (Fla.1982).

In conformity with our previous decision in Miller, we hold that Appellant may challenge his conviction and raise fundamental error on direct appeal, despite his failure to raise the issue below and preserve it for review pursuant to rule 9.140(b)(2)(A).

We deny the State’s motion to dismiss.

We reverse Appellant’s conviction and sentence for felony DWLS and remand to the trial court. On remand, since the State is losing the full benefit of its plea agreement, it will have the option of how to proceed, either by having the trial court enter a conviction for first-degree misdemeanor DWLS under section 322.34(2)(b), Florida Statutes, or by allowing Appellant to withdraw his plea and face trial on the original charges, with the felony DWLS charge lessened to a misdemeanor count. Further, because we conclude that the issue of whether a defendant waives his right to appeal a defect in his conviction when he receives the benefit of a negotiated plea is a matter of great public importance, we certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court:

MAY A DEFENDANT WHO HAS ENTERED A NEGOTIATED PLEA RAISE FOR THE FIRST TIME ON DIRECT APPEAL THE CLAIM THAT HIS CONVICTION VIOLATES THE DECISION IN THOMPSON V. STATE, 887 So. 2d 1260 (Fla.2004)?

REVERSED and REMANDED; QUESTION CERTIFIED.

BARFIELD and ALLEN, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • State v. Bruce, 14 So. 3d 220 (Fla. 2009)
    …PER CURIAM. We initially accepted jurisdiction in the case of Bruce v. State, 993 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), in which the First District Court of Appeal ruled upon a question certified to be of great public importance. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Having-considered the First District’s opinion and the briefs of the parties, upon…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw