FREDERICK L. COLE, III
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Frederick L. Cole, III appealed from an order denying his motions to withdraw a guilty plea as untimely. Cole filed two motions to withdraw his plea more than one year and fourteen months after sentencing, respectively. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of the motions because they were filed outside the thirty-day statutory window.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of Cole's motions to withdraw his plea as untimely. A motion to withdraw a plea under Rule 3.170(l) must be filed within thirty days after rendition of sentence, and Cole's failure to meet this deadline waives appellate review of the issue.
[1] A motion to withdraw a guilty plea under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(l) must be filed within thirty days after rendition of sentence; failure to meet this de…
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 intelligenceCole entered a guilty plea pursuant to plea negotiations and was sentenced on November 6, 2019, to eight years in prison followed by two years' probat…
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 Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.170(l) cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed August 4, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________ No. 3D21-599 Lower Tribunal No. F18-17745 ________________ Frederick L. Cole, III,
Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Thomas J. Rebull, Judge. Frederick L. Cole, III, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Magaly Rodriguez, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before EMAS, HENDON and MILLER, JJ. EMAS, J.
Frederick L. Cole, III appeals from an order denying, as untimely, his motions to withdraw plea filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(l). Cole alleged in his motions that he entered a plea of guilty pursuant to negotiations and that, as a result of the negotiated plea, he was sentenced on November 6, 2019, to eight years in prison followed by two years’ probation.
Thereafter, Cole filed two separate motions to withdraw his plea. The first motion to withdraw was handwritten, and alleges it was placed in the hands of corrections officials on November 18, 2020, more than a year after the sentence was rendered. The second motion was typewritten, and alleges it was placed in the hands of corrections officials on January 6, 2021, fourteen months after the sentence was rendered. Both motions allege the identical basis for seeking to withdraw the November 6, 2019, plea and sentence.
The trial court properly denied these motions as untimely. A motion to withdraw plea pursuant to rule 3.170(l) is narrowly limited in both time and scope:
Motion to Withdraw the Plea after Sentencing. A defendant who pleads guilty or nolo contendere without expressly reserving the right to appeal a legally dispositive issue may file a motion to withdraw the plea within thirty days after rendition of the sentence, but only upon the grounds specified in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b)(2)(A)(ii)(a)-(e) except as provided by law. Cole’s failure to file his motion to withdraw plea within thirty days of rendition of his sentence “waives the issue for appellate review, and the defendant is limited to filing a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.” McKnight v. State, 964 So. 2d 803, 804 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (quoting Gafford v. State, 783 So. 2d 1191, 1192 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001));
Sundwall v. State, 306 So. 3d 1061 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020); Daniels v. State, 974 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).
Affirmed without prejudice to the filing of a timely and legally sufficient motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hamlen v. Welch, 116 F.2d 413 (1st Cir. 1940)…dation and only a nominal sum then. If, in the exercise of a sound business judgment, the trustee so decided, he ascertained the claim to be worthless within the meaning of the statute. Cf. Selden v. Heiner, supra; Hammerschmidt & Franzen Co., 1928, 12 B.T.A. 811; Klau, Van Pietersom, Dunlap, Inc., 1928, 9 B.T.A. 1335; Imperial Furniture Co., supra; see, III Paul & Mertens, op. cit., at § 28.70. We believe a reasonable jury could find on the evidence that the taxpayer had ascertained the debt to be worthless…
Authorities Cited
- Gafford v. State, 783 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Phillis C. Jodnauth v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 964 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)
- Daniels v. State, 974 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)