M. C. SANDS, A/K/A WILLIE SAMUEL, 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.
M.C. Sands appealed his conviction for uttering a forged instrument after pleading guilty and receiving a 39-month sentence. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that a voluntary guilty plea waives all non-jurisdictional and non-fundamental defects, including the trial court's failure to comply with statutory sentencing procedures.
A voluntary guilty plea waives all defects that are not jurisdictional or fundamental error. The trial court's failure to ask a defendant whether he has cause to show why sentence should not be pronounced is not fundamental error and therefore was waived by Sands' guilty plea.
“a voluntary plea of guilty waives all defects which are not jurisdictional or fundamental”
establishes the fundamental rule that guilty pleas waive most procedural defects
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSands pleaded guilty to uttering a forged instrument on March 2, 1966, and was sentenced to 39 months in prison on August 8, 1966. On the same day, he…
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 Waiver Of Defects By Guilty Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant M. C. Sands pleaded guilty to uttering a forged instrument and was convicted thereof on March 2, 1966. On August 8, 1966, after pre-sentence investigation, he was sentenced to 39 months in prison. On the same day he filed a handwritten “petition and motion to vacate or deferr [sic] judgment, and release from custody until reconsideration and final [disposition of said case,” alleging denial in general of his constitutional rights and the court’s failure to ask him, pursuant to the requirements of Fla.Stat., Sec. 921.07, F.S.A., whether he had any cause to show why sentence should not be pronounced. *142His motion was denied on August 11, 1966, an on August 26, 1966, he filed a handwritten notice of appeal.
Appellant’s notice of appeal does not state with certainty what is being appealed. The pertinent-portion of it reads as follows:
"Notice is hereby given that a motion on appeal has been made to the District Court of Appeal, Second District, in Lakeland, Florida, to vacate and set aside the judgment and sentence entered and imposed against the above named Defendant-Appellant by the above named Circuit Court of Lee County, Florida, on the 8th day of August, 1966.”
This could be construed as intending to appeal either the judgment and sentence or the order denying the post-conviction motion, if said motion is regarded as having been made pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 1, F. S.A. ch. 924 Appendix.
On September 9, 1966, the court below entered an order determining that the cause presented to it by appellant’s motion to vacate had not been a proceeding under Fla.R.Crim.P. 1, rather that it had been simply a motion as entitled. By this order the court was presumably indicating that it had interpreted appellant’s motion to be in the nature of one for rehearing, the interpretation most favorable to appellant as far as his possible future remedies are concerned. We adopt this interpretation and, accordingly, regard this appeal as being from the judgment and sentence rather than from an order denying a motion made pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 1.
By failing to state with certainty what was being appealed, the notice of appeal failed to comply with the requirements of Fla.App.R. 3.2(c), 32 F.S.A. in effect at the time. By virtue of the same rule, however, such a deficiency is not a jurisdictional defect. Thus this court is not precluded from asserting jurisdiction in this cause.
Appellant’s assertions of error, however, are rendered moot because of his plea of guilty. There is nothing in the record which indicates that his plea of guilty was made other than voluntarily and with full comprehension of its possible consequences (appellant does not contend otherwise), and a voluntary plea of guilty waives all defects which are not jurisdictional or fundamental. Hines v. State, Fla.App.1967, 195 So.2d 605, 606 (arrest without a warrant) ; Dozier v. State, Fla.App.1966, 192 So.2d 506, 507 (arrest without a warrant, interrogation without benefit of counsel, and inadequate representation by counsel at trial) ; Childs v. State, Fla.App.1966, 190 So.2d 605, 606 (arrest without a warrant) ; Williams v. State, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 736, 738 (inadequate representation by counsel at trial) ; Hunter v. State, Fla. App.1965, 174 So.2d 415, 417 (arrest on improper warrant) ; Gibson v. State, Fla.App. 1965, 173 So.2d 766, 768 (interrogation without benefit of counsel); Lee v. State, Fla.App. 1965, 172 So.2d 620, 621 (lack of prompt arraignment). A court’s failure to ask a criminal defendant whether he has any cause to show why sentence should not be pronounced is not fundamental error.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
Affirmed.
LILES, C. J., and ALLEN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rice v. State, 243 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)…ents none of which were legally sufficient under Rule 1.730 Cr.PR, 33 F.S.A. Even if appellant’s point was properly raised by assignment of error and factually supported by the record, it would not be fundamental error, Sands v. State, Fla.App.1967, 202 So. 2d 141, and in the absence of some indication in the record that a proper cause did exist for the court not to pronounce sentence, it would not be reversible error. The judgment and sentence are severally affirmed. WALDEN and REED, JJ., concur.…
-
Kincaid v. State, 227 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)…aw as stated in Padgett v. State, 1934, 117 Fla. 75, 157 So. 186, and a plea of guilty waives all defects and irregularities not jurisdictional and is itself a conviction. Thomas v. State, Fla. App.1967, 201 So. 2d 834; Sands v. State, Fla.App.1967, 202 So. 2d 141; Hines v. State, Fla.App.1967, 195 So. 2d 605. The record on appeal recites that on April 3, 1967 the defendant was arraigned and entered a plea of guilty to Information No. 99757. The record on appeal fails to show the want of a “formal” arraignme…
-
Sutherland v. State, 214 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…rd on appeal reveals nothing to show that appellant’s plea of guilty to the reduced charge of manslaughter was anything but voluntarily made. We are unable to find any error from the record. [*374] Upon the authority of Sands v. State, Fla.App.1967, 202 So. 2d 141, we affirm the trial court’s decision. Affirmed. ALLEN, Acting- C. J., and PIERCE and MANN, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gibson v. State, 173 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Childs v. State, 190 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Hunter v. State, 174 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Hines v. State, 195 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- Williams v. State, 177 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)
- Garnest Washington Hudson v. State, 192 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Laures James Dozier v. State, 192 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)