HECTOR DAVID ARZOLA, 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.
Hector Arzola was convicted of cocaine trafficking after entering a nolo contendere plea conditioned on the State allowing him to provide substantial assistance under Florida law to reduce his sentence. The trial court denied his motion to withdraw the plea before sentencing after the State refused to allow him to provide the promised substantial assistance, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the plea should have been withdrawn.
The trial court erred in denying the motion to withdraw the plea. Because Arzola's plea was conditioned on the understanding that he would be allowed to provide substantial assistance pursuant to section 893.135(4), Florida Statutes, and the State refused to allow him to do so, this constituted good cause for withdrawal of the plea under the liberalized standard applicable before sentencing.
[1] A defendant may be allowed to withdraw a nolo contendere plea prior to sentencing when the State fails to honor a material condition of the plea agreement.
[2] A plea agreement conditioned on the defendant's provision of substantial assistance may be withdrawn if the defendant is prevented from providing such assistance.
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“Arzola entered a plea conditioned on the understanding that he would be allowed to provide substantial assistance pursuant to section 893.135(4), Florida Statutes. He was not allowed to do so.”
Establishes that the plea was conditioned on a specific performance obligation by the State that was breached
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceArzola entered a nolo contendere plea pursuant to an agreement with the State allowing him to provide substantial assistance in exchange for a sentenc…
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 Good Cause For Plea Withdrawal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Hector Arzola [“Arzola”] was convicted of trafficking in cocaine, in violation of section 893.135, Florida Statutes (2007). He appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his plea prior to sentencing and the trial court’s refusal to sentence him as a youthful offender. There was plainly no error in the refusal to sentence Arzola as a youthful offender, but it was error not to allow Arzola to withdraw his plea.
Arzola’s nolo contendere plea was the product of an agreement with the State for Arzola to provide substantial assistance in exchange for the possibility of a sentence below the statutory minimum mandatory. The agreement allowed Arzola to provide “substantial assistance” in accordance with section 893.135(4), Florida Statutes, which permits the State to negotiate a reduced drug trafficking sentence for individuals who provide substantial assistance “in the identification arrest, or conviction of any ... person engaged in trafficking in controlled substances.” The agreement also allowed Arzola to provide “substantial assistance” in the form of information relevant to an unrelated homicide case.
Prior to sentencing, Arzola moved to withdraw his plea on grounds that the State would not honor its agreement and refused to allow him to provide any substantial assistance pursuant to section 893.135(4), Florida Statutes. There does not appear to be any dispute that the State refused to allow Arzola to provide this assistance.
On this record, the motion to withdraw plea under the liberalized standard applicable prior to sentencing should have been granted. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.170(f). Arzola entered a plea conditioned on the understanding that he would be allowed to provide substantial assistance pursuant to section 893.135(4), Florida Statutes. He was not allowed to do so. We agree that this “misapprehension” constituted good cause for withdrawal of the plea prior to sentencing.1
REVERSED and REMANDED.
PALMER, C.J., GRIFFIN and LAWSON, JJ„ concur. . Although not cited by the parties, our conclusion is buttressed by this Court’s opinion in Campbell v. State, 453 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Paige M. Rivera v. State, 136 So. 3d 609 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…s entitled to be heard on an oral motion to withdraw a plea. Hughen, 96 So. 3d at 1115. Ms. Rivera’s misapprehension of the effect of her agreement to provide substantial assistance could be a valid basis for finding good cause. See Arzola v. State, 994 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (holding that the State’s refusal to allow the defendant to provide substantial assistance resulted in a misapprehension sufficient to allow withdrawal of the plea). But the trial court must have evidence to make this determinati…
-
Harper v. State, 152 So. 3d 735 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…ocedure 3.170(f). There was no meeting of the minds as to the length of time appellant had to perform under a substantial assistance agreement and his efforts were shut down by the supervising detective after only 16 or 17 days. See Arzola v. State, 994 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); Timothee v. State, 721 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Pate v. State, 547 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Elias v. State, 531 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Soto v. State, 515 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). No direct evidence…
Authorities Cited
- Campbell v. State, 453 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)