T.F., A CHILD, 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 a juvenile's disposition order and remanded because the trial court failed to ensure the child had an opportunity to consult with defense counsel before accepting a guilty plea entered solely for convenience.
A trial court must provide a juvenile defendant an opportunity to consult with defense counsel before accepting a guilty plea, and failure to do so requires reversal and remand.
[1] A trial court must ensure a juvenile defendant has an opportunity to consult with defense counsel before accepting a guilty plea, and failure to create such an opportunit…
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“When the record fails to reflect a determination by the trial court that the juvenile has entered a plea voluntarily ... remand is appropriate.”
Court citing D.V.L. v. State for the standard requiring voluntary plea entry in juvenile cases.
T.F., a child, entered a nolo contendere plea, but the trial court refused to accept it and stated it would only accept a guilty plea as a matter of c…
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 Guilty Plea Validity cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, T.F., appeals an order of disposition and challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. As the State acknowledges on appeal, the record provides no indication that Appellant was given an opportunity to con-*989suit with defense counsel after the trial court stated that it would not accept Appellant’s nolo contendere plea and would only accept a guilty plea as a matter of convenience, to which defense counsel replied, “Yes, your Honor. We’ll enter a plea of guilty to convenience.” See D.V.L. v. State, 693 So.2d 693, 694 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (“When the record fails to reflect a determination by the trial court that the juvenile has entered a plea voluntarily ... remand is appropriate.”); Richardson v. State, 432 So.2d 750, 751 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (“When a defendant moves to withdraw his plea of guilty, the court should be liberal in exercising its discretion to permit the withdrawal, especially where it is shown that the plea was based on a failure of communication....”).
Accordingly, we reverse the disposition order and remand for further proceedings. See Sanders v. State, 662 So.2d 1372, 1374 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (noting that, on remand, the trial court was free to permit the appellant to withdraw her plea or conduct an evidentiary hearing to develop the facts surrounding the entry of the plea).
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
WEBSTER, DAVIS, and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ellis Richardson v. State, 432 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Sanders v. State, 662 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- D.V.L. v. State, 693 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)