NIKKO GLEN ALBANESE, 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.
Nikko Albanese appealed his guilty plea conviction on two grounds: that the plea agreement lacked consideration and that the trial court failed to hold a mental competency hearing. The appellate court affirmed, holding that both issues required a motion to withdraw the plea to be preserved for appeal, which Albanese failed to file.
A defendant who pleads guilty without reserving the right to appeal may only directly appeal certain limited issues, including subject matter jurisdiction violations, plea agreement violations (if preserved by motion to withdraw), involuntary pleas (if preserved by motion to withdraw), and sentencing errors. Since Albanese did not file a motion to withdraw his plea, his challenges to the validity and voluntariness of his plea were not properly preserved for appeal.
[1] A defendant who pleads guilty or nolo contendere may not appeal from the plea except as provided by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b)(2)(A).
[2] A defendant appealing issues related to the voluntary and intelligent nature of a guilty plea must first file a motion to withdraw the plea with the trial court.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“While defendants who plead guilty have a constitutional right to appeal, "the issues that they can raise on appeal are limited."”
Establishes that guilty-plea defendants have limited appellate rights compared to those who go to trial.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlbanese pled guilty to two counts of robbery with a firearm and two counts of felon in possession of a firearm. He was adjudicated guilty of all four…
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 Reservation Of Right To Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
On Combined Motion FOR Clarification, Certification, and Issuance of a Written Opinion
On September 1, 2015, this court issued an order granting the State’s March 31, 2015 motion to dismiss appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant has now filed a combined “motion for clarification, for certification of issue for appellate review, and for issuance of a written opinion.”1 We grant the motions for clarification and for issuance of a written opinion, but deny the request for certification. We also vacate the September 1, 2015 order and deny the State’s motion to dismiss. Upon consideration of the briefs, the court’s opinion is as follows.
The Defendant, Nikko Albanese, pled guilty to two counts of robbery with a firearm and two counts of felon in- possession of a firearm. He was adjudicated guilty of all four crimes and sentenced to serve ten years in prison.
The Defendant appeals his conviction on two grounds. First, he argues the plea agreement is void for lack of consideration. Second, he argues the trial court erred in failing to sua sponte hold a mental competency hearing.
While defendants who plead guilty have a constitutional right to appeal, “the issues that they can raise on appeal are limited.” Leonard v. State, 760 So.2d 114, 116 (Fla.2000).
A defendant may not appeal from a guilty or nolo contendere plea except as follows:
(i) Reservation of Right to Appeal. A defendant who pleads guilty or nolo contendere may expressly reserve the right to appeal a prior dispositive order ,...
(ii) Appeals Otherwise Allowed. A defendant who pleads guilty or nolo contendere may otherwise directly appeal only
a. the lower tribunal’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction;
b. a violation of the plea agreement, if preserved by a motion to withdraw plea;
c. an involuntary plea, if preserved by a motion to withdraw plea;
d. a sentencing error, if preserved; or
e. as otherwise provided by law.
Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A) (emphasis added). The Defendant did not reserve his right to appeal and did not file a mo*407tion to withdraw his plea. He claims that his arguments on appeal “tacitly rely” on rule 9.140(b)(2)(A)(ii)a. (the trial court exceeded its subject matter jurisdiction). We disagree.'
We find both issues raised on appeal involve the voluntary and intelligent nature of the Defendant’s plea. Before raising thesé issues on appeal, “the defendant must first file with the trial court a motion to withdraw the plea.” Burns v. State, 884 So.2d 1010, 1013 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).
Accordingly, we affirm. See Leonard v. State, 760 So.2d 114, 119 (Fla.2000); Robinson v. State, 373 So.2d 898 (Fla.1979).
WARNER and-FORST, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Gissendanner v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1979)
- Robinson v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1979)
- Leonard v. State, 760 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 2000)
- Burns v. State, 884 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)