BRIAN BRIGGS
v.
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.
Appellant sought to withdraw his nolo contendere plea post-sentencing, claiming his attorney failed to inform him of youthful offender status eligibility. The trial court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, and the appellate court affirmed, finding appellant failed to demonstrate manifest injustice or prejudice.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the plea. Appellant failed to satisfy the burden of demonstrating manifest injustice because he did not show he would not have pleaded guilty but for his attorney's misadvice, and he failed to demonstrate prejudice given the trial court's indication it would not have reduced his sentence under youthful offender provisions.
[1] To establish manifest injustice warranting withdrawal of a plea after sentencing, a defendant must demonstrate that but for counsel's misadvice, he would not have pleaded…
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“This is fatal to his claim.”
The court stated this regarding the appellant's failure to assert that but for attorney's misadvice, he would not have pled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.
Appellant was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment with a mandatory ten-year minimum pursuant to a plea agreement. After sentencing, he moved to wi…
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 Youthful Offender Status cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant was sentenced to fifteen years in prison, with a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence. Post-sentence, he filed a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(l), seeking to withdraw his plea of nolo contendere. Appellant’s motion contended that his plea was involuntary because his attorney failed to inform him that he was eligible for a youthful offender status. The trial court denied the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing, stating in its order that “even if the court had the discretion to impose a Youthful Offender sentence, based upon the egregious facts of this case, the court would impose the same sentence, regardless.”
“[W]hen a motion to withdraw is filed after sentencing, the burden is upon the appellant to show that ‘a manifest injustice has occurred.’” Hall v. State, 72 So. 3d 290, 293 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (quoting Snodgrass v. State, 837 So. 2d 507, 508 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)). Appellant failed to satisfy this burden. Appellant has not asserted, either in his motion below or in his appeal, that but for his attorney’s misadvice, Appellant would not have pled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. “This is fatal to his claim.” Alfred v. State, 998 So. 2d 1197, 1200 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Moreover, in light of the trial court’s pronouncement that it would not have reduced Appellant’s sentence per the permissive (not mandatory) youthful offender sentencing option, Appellant has not demonstrated prejudice or harmful error. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw plea.
Affirmed. CONNER, C.J., FORST and KUNTZ, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Snodgrass v. State, 837 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Dorris v. State, 998 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- Delbert G. Hall v. State, 72 So. 3d 290 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)