ROBERT RALPH MORET, 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.
Robert Moret appealed the denial of his motion to vacate a guilty plea and life sentence for first-degree murder, arguing he was not properly advised by counsel and the court about the consequences of changing his plea. The appellate court held that although Moret's allegations seemed incredible given his experienced counsel, the trial court erred by denying the motion without an evidentiary hearing and remanded for such a hearing.
The appellate court held that the trial court erred in denying the motion to vacate without an evidentiary hearing. Although Moret's allegations seemed incredible given his counsel's experience, the right to be advised and to intelligently enter a guilty plea to a serious crime requires an evidentiary hearing on such allegations, and the case must be remanded for that purpose.
[1] A motion to vacate a judgment and sentence requires an evidentiary hearing if the allegations in the motion are not clearly refuted by the record.
[2] A defendant must be advised of the consequences of a guilty plea to ensure the plea is intelligent and voluntary.
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“The right in Florida to be advised upon and intelligently make a plea of guilty to this most serious crime anti-dates the pronouncements of a constitutional right therein by the Supreme Court of the United States.”
Establishes that Florida recognized a right to intelligent guilty pleas independent of federal constitutional requirements, predating Boykin v. Alabama.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMoret pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Approximately four and one-half years later, he filed a motion to …
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 Judgment And Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant changed his plea from not guilty to guilty upon a charge of murder in the first degree. He was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment. Some four and one-half years later he brought a motion to vacate the judgment and sentence under Fla. CrPR 1.850, 33 F. S.A. Although other grounds for relief were alleged in the motion, the burden of this appeal is that the trial court erred in denying the motion without an evidentiary hearing upon the ground that appellant was not properly advised by counsel and the court upon the consequences of his change of plea.
The trial judge denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing upon a holding that the record clearly refuted appellant’s claim for relief. As pertains to the ground for relief with which we are now concerned, appellant’s allegations in his motion are: (1) that he “had very limited knowledge” of the English languáge; (2) that he “had no opportunity” to discuss his rights of trial or the consequences of his change of plea with his court-appointed attorney; (3) that the trial court failed to fully advise him upon the consequences of a plea of guilty to the charge of murder in the first degree.
*501It must be admitted that under the circumstances of this case, where the appellant was represented by one of the most experienced and able members of the bar practicing before the criminal courts, the allegations set forth above are somewhat incredulous. In addition this guilty plea was accepted prior to the United States Supreme Court decision in Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L. Ed.2d 274, and the publication of Fla. CrPR l:170(a). Nevertheless we are convinced from our examination of the record that the trial judge erroneously denied appellant’s motion without .an evidentiary hearing. The right in Florida to be advised upon and intelligently make a plea of guilty to this most serious crime anti-dates the pronouncements of a constitutional right therein by the Supreme Court of the United States. Cf. Reddick v. State, Fla.App.1966, 190 So.2d 340.
Accordingly the order denying the motion to vacate is affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded for an evi-dentiary hearing upon petitioner’s allegation that his plea of guilty was entered without the opportunity for legal counsel and without an intelligent explanation of the consequences of his change of plea.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1969)
- Reddick v. State, 190 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)