SHERMAN COMBS, 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.
Sherman Combs appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to withdraw a guilty plea made before sentencing. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Combs failed to demonstrate the plea was involuntary and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the withdrawal motion.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the guilty plea. Combs failed to meet his burden of proving that his plea was involuntary, and the record supports the conclusion that he made an informed strategic decision in deciding to plead guilty.
[1] A motion to withdraw a guilty plea before sentencing is governed by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(f), which allows withdrawal in the court's discretion or when…
[2] A defendant seeking to withdraw a guilty plea before sentencing bears the burden of proving the plea was not voluntary.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“the trial court is in the best position to make factual determinations regarding the entry of the plea”
Establishes the deference given to trial courts in assessing plea voluntariness
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCombs entered a guilty plea and subsequently moved to withdraw it before sentencing, claiming innocence and asserting he pleaded guilty out of fear 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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Good Cause For Plea Withdrawal cases and more on FLexlaw
In this direct criminal appeal, the appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of *549the appellant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The motion was made before sentencing, and is thus governed by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(f) which provides that before sentencing the court “may in its discretion, and shall on good cause,” permit a plea to be withdrawn. The appellant contends that the circumstances of this case present both an abuse of discretion and good cause, based on the appellant’s claim of innocence and assertion that he pled because he feared the severity of the sentence which might be imposed if he were to be convicted at trial. However, in both the written plea form and the court’s pre-plea colloquy, the appellant was apprised of the consequences of his plea and the rights he was waiving. Furthermore, after considering the appellant’s testimony and argument of counsel at a hearing on the motion to withdraw the plea, the court found that the appellant failed to show that his plea was anything other than free and voluntary.
As the supreme court indicated in Tanzi v. State, 964 So.2d 106 (Fla.2007), the trial court is in the best position to make factual determinations regarding the entry of the plea. It was the appellant’s burden to prove that his plea was not voluntary, see Robinson v. State, 761 So.2d 269 (Fla.1999), and the record in this case supports a conclusion that the appellant made an informed strategic decision in deciding to plead. See also Tanzi, supra. In these circumstances the trial court was not required to grant the appellant’s later motion to withdraw his plea, and the appellant has not shown any abuse of the trial court’s discretion.
AFFIRMED.
DAVIS and WETHERELL, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Robinson v. State, 761 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 1999)
- Tanzi v. State, 964 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 2007)