FRANK IPPOLITO, JR., 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.
Frank Ippolito appeals his conviction for burglary after pleading guilty, claiming error in accepting his guilty plea despite a prior adjudication of incompetency years before. The trial court held a sanity hearing, heard expert testimony that Ippolito was mentally competent, and accepted the guilty plea as voluntary and knowing. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding the guilty plea was valid and Ippolito's rights were protected.
The trial court did not err. Ippolito's guilty plea was voluntary, knowing, approved by counsel, and made while he was mentally competent as established by expert psychiatric testimony, and his legal rights were protected throughout the proceeding.
“the trial Court erred in accepting a guilty plea where the defendant several years before had been adjudged incompetent, although his competency was later restored legally; and where the trial Judge ordered and held a sanity hearing, after which he was adjudged to be competent by the trial Court.”
Statement of the legal issue being reviewed on appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIppolito was charged with burglary on October 24, 1967, and initially pleaded not guilty on October 30, 1967. On January 23, 1968, at trial, he reques…
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 Sanity Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant Frank Ippolito, Jr., appeals to this Court from a judgment of conviction in a criminal case.
Substantially, the only point involved is whether the trial Court erred in accepting a guilty plea where the defendant several years before had been adjudged incompetent, although his competency was later restored legally; and where the trial Judge ordered and held a sanity hearing, after which he was adjudged to be competent by the trial Court.
On October 24, 1967, information was filed in the Hillsborough County Criminal Court of Record charging Ippolito with the burglary of a certain commercial building in Tampa. On October 30, 1967, he was arraigned and entered plea of not guilty. Thereafter, on January 23, 1968, the day the case was set for trial, he appeared in Court with his privately-employed counsel and, upon being again arraigned, requested permission to withdraw his previous not guilty plea and to enter a plea of guilty. The trial Judge then meticulously ascertained by interrogation in open court that Ippolito was fully aware of his legal and constitutional rights, that he was entering the guilty plea voluntarily and without any debilitating influences, and that it was with approval of his private counsel. Under such circumstances, the Court accepted the plea of guilty.
His counsel then requested the Court to order a sanity hearing for him, advising the Court that a few years previously Ip-polito had been adjudged incompetent, but later restored to legal sanity. The Court thereupon appointed two expert psychiatrists who, at a hearing for such purpose on February 13, 1968, gave sworn testimony before the Court that they had separately, on different dates, examined Ippoli-to sufficiently to determine his current mental condition. They each stated that he was sane to the requisite degree, namely, that he understood the nature of the charge against him, that he could distinguish right from wrong, that he understood the effect of his plea, and that he could assist and advise with his counsel. He was thereupon found and adjudged sane by the Court, was adjudged guilty of the charge to which he had pleaded guilty, and was accordingly sentenced. It is from this judgment and sentence that Ippolito appeals. We affirm.
From the mere recital of the foregoing facts, all of which appear in the record here, it is clearly apparent that Ippolito’s plea of guilty was voluntary, that it was knowingly made, that it was approved by his privately-retained counsel, that he was mentally competent at the time it was entered, and that his every legal right was at all times zealously protected. The judgment of conviction appealed is therefore
Affirmed.
LILES, C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. State, 421 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…from those in Bryant v. State, 373 So. 2d 380 (Fla.lst DCA 1979), wherein Bryant had been examined by a psychiatrist prior to his commission of an offense but had never been adjudicated either incompetent or insane. Contrast also Ippolito v. State, 214 So. 2d 637 (Fla.2d DCA 1968) (defendant adjudged sane at time of his hearing). Second, although Jones had consumed mind altering medications at the time he entered his plea, his attorney never informed the court of this fact at such time. Inconsistently, howe…