MARK W. SHORES, 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.
Mark Shores appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea to drug trafficking charges. The appellate court affirmed, holding that a defendant's failure to review discovery before entering a plea does not constitute good cause for withdrawal under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(f).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the plea. A defendant's failure to read discovery materials before entering a plea does not constitute good cause under Rule 3.170(f). Although the rule does not require the motion to be in writing, the trial court's denial was based on the lack of good cause, not the form of the motion.
[1] A trial court has discretion to allow a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea before sentencing.
[2] A defendant's failure to read discovery materials before entering a guilty plea does not constitute good cause to withdraw the plea.
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“The court may in its discretion, and shall on good cause, at any time before a sentence, permit a plea of guilty or no contest to be withdrawn”
Establishes the legal standard for plea withdrawal under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(f), requiring either discretion or good cause
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceShores was charged with drug trafficking offenses, including trafficking in twenty-eight grams or more of Oxycodone. After last-minute negotiations, h…
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 Motion To Set Aside Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
Mark Shores appeals the denial of his motion to set aside his plea. Finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.
Shores was charged with several drug-related offenses, including trafficking in twenty-eight grams or more of Oxycodone. After a series of last minute negotiations, Shores pleaded guilty to a lesser-included offense, and he agreed to meet with law enforcement officials to potentially offer substantial assistance.
At sentencing, Shores orally requested to withdraw his plea. In essence, Shores *94wanted to withdraw his plea because he had not read the discovery in his case at the time of the plea. The trial court denied the motion, finding that Shores had the discovery at the time he entered the plea, chose not to read it, and entered the plea freely and voluntarily. The trial court also noted that the motion was not in writing. On appeal, Shores argues that the trial court erred in denying the motion on the ground that it was not in writing.
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170 provides that a trial court may, in its discretion, allow a defendant to withdraw a plea:
The court may in its discretion, and shall on good cause, at any time before a sentence, permit a plea of guilty or no contest to be withdrawn and, if judgment of conviction has been entered thereon, set aside the judgment and allow a plea of not guilty, or, with the consent of the prosecuting attorney, allow a plea of guilty or no contest of a lesser included offense, or of a lesser degree of the offense charged, to be substituted for the plea of guilty or no contest. The fact that a defendant may have entered a plea of guilty or no contest and later withdrawn the plea may not be used against the defendant in a trial of that cause.
Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.170(f). Shores is correct that the rule does not require that the motion to withdraw be in writing. See McInturff v. State, 111 So.3d 296 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). Although the trial judge noted that the motion was not in writing, that finding does not appear to have been the reason for denial. Had it been, the trial court would have summarily denied the motion rather, than conduct a hearing. Instead, the denial was based on a finding that a defendant’s failure to read discovery until after the entry of a plea does not constitute good cause under Rule 3.170(f). We agree.1
AFFIRMED.
WALLIS and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Benjamin v. State, 230 So. 3d 953 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…d basis upon which Benjamin sought to withdraw his plea: that Benjamin did not have his discovery. Without seeking elaboration on why the discovery might support withdrawal of Benjamin’s plea, the court simply denied the motion. Cf. Shores v. State, 152 So. 3d 93, 94 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (concluding that the denial of the motion to withdraw plea based on defendant not having read his discovery was not an abuse of discretion where “the denial was based on a finding that a defendant’s failure to read discovery…
Authorities Cited
- McINTURFF v. State, 111 So. 3d 296 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)