WESLEY CARLSON

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

Fla. 5th DCA | 2020-06-19

No. 19-2625

Cohen, J., Wallis, J., Traver, J., Briggs, J., Singeltary, J.

Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2020)

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.

Holding

A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance request made one hour before a pretrial conference when the case has already been granted five continuances and involves a co-defendant, nor in denying a motion to withdraw a plea on counts where the defendant failed to establish a factual basis for withdrawal.

Headnotes

[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance request filed one hour before a pretrial conference when the case has already received multiple conti…

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

Facts & Procedural History

Wesley Carlson pled no contest to seventeen charges. His new counsel filed a notice of appearance and requested a thirty-day continuance one hour befo…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Topics

No Contest Plea Factual Basis For Plea Motion For Continuance Motion To Withdraw Plea

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse No Contest Plea cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

Traver

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

WESLEY CARLSON,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D19-2625

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee. ________________________________/

Opinion filed June 19, 2020

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lake County,

G. Richard Singeltary, Judge.

Charles D. Fantl, of Charles D. Fantl, Tavares, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kaylee D. Tatman, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

COHEN, J.

Wesley Carlson pled no contest to seventeen charges. On appeal, he argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a continuance and in denying, in part, his motion to withdraw his plea. We affirm. Carlson’s first argument is that the trial court¹ abused its discretion in denying his motion for a continuance without a hearing because it was putting its “need to move a

AFFIRMED.

WALLIS and TRAVER, JJ., concur.

2 Carlson also argues that discovery deficiencies warranted a continuance. However, he never raised that argument to the trial court and thus, has failed to preserve it for appellate review. See Braddy v. State, 111 So. 3d 810, 836 (Fla. 2012) (“In order to preserve an issue for appellate review, the specific legal argument or ground upon which it is based must be presented to the trial court.” (quoting Kokal v. State, 901 So. 2d 766, 778–79 (Fla. 2005))).

Footnotes

1 The Honorable Don Briggs. Judge Briggs retired before Carlson’s sentencing.

2 court docket” before his genuine need to prepare for trial. That assertion lacks merit. The trial court had already granted Carlson five continuances in this case. One hour before Carlson’s pretrial conference, his new counsel filed a notice of appearance and requested a thirty-day continuance. The trial court denied that request, explaining that the case had been set for trial for several months and that it involved a co-defendant. Despite denying the continuance, it ruled that it would set the case late in the trial period to allow Carlson’s new counsel additional time to prepare. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s ruling.2 See McKay v. State, 504 So. 2d 1280, 1282–83 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Ultimately, Carlson entered a no contest plea. He argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw that plea. At the hearing on his motion, Carlson acknowledged that the factual basis for the motion applied to only two of the counts of the plea. Thus, the trial court granted Carlson’s motion as to those two counts only. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of the motion to withdraw his plea on the remaining counts.3 See generally Wagner v. State, 895 So. 2d 453, 456– 57 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

3 Carlson also failed to preserve his argument that his plea was not entered into freely and voluntarily, as he did not raise that argument below. See Braddy, 111 So. 3d at 836.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Harrel Franklin Braddy v. State, 111 So. 3d 810 (Fla. 2012)
Kokal v. State, 901 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 2005)
McKAY v. State, 504 So. 2d 1280 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
Maki v. Autonation, Inc., 895 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw

WESLEY CARLSON v. STATE OF FLORIDA