STROMAN RUSSELL, 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.
Russell appeals his conviction for robbery following a plea of nolo contendere. The Florida appellate court reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to comply with procedural requirements in accepting the plea, specifically failing to ensure the plea was voluntary and that the defendant understood the nature of the charge.
The trial court erred in accepting the plea of nolo contendere without first determining that it was made voluntarily and with a complete understanding of the nature of the charge. The judgment and sentence are therefore reversed and the case is remanded to allow the defendant to withdraw the plea and plead anew.
[1] A plea of nolo contendere is construed for all practical purposes as a plea of guilty.
[2] A court shall not accept a plea of guilty or nolo contendere without first determining that the plea is made voluntarily and with an understanding of the nature of the ch…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“A plea of nolo contendere is construed for all practical purposes as a plea of guilty and in essence waives trial by jury and places the defendant at the mercy of the court.”
Establishes the significance and consequences of a nolo contendere plea
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRussell, represented by a public defender, appeared at arraignment and entered a plea of nolo contendere to a robbery charge without objection. The ar…
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 Understanding Of The Nature Of The Charge cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant-defendant appeals a final judgment of guilt and sentence thereon for the offense of robbery. We reverse.
Defendant was represented by the public defender and at arraignment entered a plea of nolo contendere which was followed by the judgment and sentence appealed.
The arraignment and plea colloquy consists of the following:
“THE CLERK: Information Number 68-00443, State of Florida versus Strq-man Russell’. Counsel for the Defendant, Mr. Fred Hitt.
“MR. HITT: Your Honor, Defendant will waive the reading of the Information and will enter a plea of Nolo Contendere at this time.
“THE COURT: Did you explain to the Defendant the nature of a plea of Nolo Contendere, Mr. Hitt?
“MR. HITT: Yes, Your Honor, I did.
“THE COURT: Do you understand that excepting in rare circumstances where you do not contest the truth of the charge that the Court has no alternative other than the finding of guilt from this plea. Do you understand that?
“THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Do you understand that entering this plea means that you do not argue with the truth of the charge against you?
“THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
“THE COURT: You do understand that?
“THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.”
Defendant-alleges error by the trial court accepting his plea without first determining it was made voluntarily and with an understanding oi the nature of the charge.
A plea of nolo contendere is construed for all practical purposes as a plea of guilty and in essence waives trial by jury and places the defendant at the mercy of the court.1
The foregoing colloquy establishes that the defendant knowingly entered his plea of nolo contendere, but when viewed under all requirements of our plea rule,2 it does not demonstrate that defendant’s plea was voluntary or that he understood the nature of the charge against him.
The problems encountered by a trial court in accepting a plea of guilty or nolo con-tendere are becoming more involved in an ever widening estuary of construction which *150causes this phase of a case to be highly deserving of red flag treatment.3
Accordingly, in this instance we vacate the judgment and sentence, and remand this cause to the trial court for the purpose of allowing the defendant to withdraw the plea of nolo contendere and to plead anew.
Reversed and remanded.
REED and OWEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lopez v. State, 509 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…o Florida courts recognize a distinction for purposes other than reservation of the right to appeal a prior order, see State v. Lillo, 506 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) ("convicted” as used in bookmaking statute includes nolo plea); Russell v. State, 233 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 4th DCA [*1336] 1970) (nolo plea construed same as guilty plea for all practical purposes). . Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.790(a) contains the parallel admonition: “Pronouncement and imposition of sentence shall not be made upon a def…
-
Brady v. State, 518 So. 2d 1305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…290 F. 2d 217 (5th Cir.1961); compare Morehouse v. State, 276 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). A plea of nolo contendere for post trial motions is considered as a plea of guilty. Stovall v. State, 252 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); Russell v. State, 233 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). Even if these motions were available, they were not filed within the time provided by the rules and therefore they should not have been considered by the trial court. State v. Robinson, 417 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Denard…
-
Thomas v. State, 273 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…made, the plea colloquy when viewed under the requirements of our plea rule does not demonstrate that defendant’s plea was voluntary. See Rule 3.170(a), F.R.Cr.P.2 See also Costello v. State, Fla.1972, 260 So. 2d 198; Russell v. State, Fla.App.1970, 233 So. 2d 148; McPherson v. State, Fla.App.1970, 237 So. 2d 18. Cf. Kelly v. State, Fla.App.1971, 254 So. 2d 22. The judgment appealed from is reversed with directions to set aside the plea of nolo contendere as entered with the entry of a new plea and further pr…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Peel v. State, 150 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Domenica v. United States, 292 F.2d 483 (1st Cir. 1961)
- United States v. Denniston, 89 F.2d 696 (2d Cir. 1937)
- Carroll E. Wade v. Louie L. Wainwright, 420 F.2d 898 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Julian v. United States, 236 F.2d 155 (6th Cir. 1956)
- United States v. Diggs, 304 F.2d 929 (6th Cir. 1962)
- Michener v. United States, 181 F.2d 911 (8th Cir. 1950)
- Smith v. State, 197 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 1967)
- Fair v. Fair, 380 U.S. 986 (U.S. 1965)
- Morphew v. Indiana, 380 U.S. 986 (U.S. 1965)