WILLIAM CARROLL ANDERSON AND EVERETT PHILLIPS, APPELLANTS,
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.
The court held that the trial court substantially complied with the requirements for accepting a guilty plea, even if the mechanics were not explicitly detailed in the record.
Appellants pleaded guilty to breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor. They appealed, arguing they were not properly advised of their…
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 Voluntariness Of Guilty Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants seek reversal of the final judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on them consequent upon their plea of guilty to the lesser included offense of breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor. Appellants were represented at the trial by the public defender.
By their brief appellants present for consideration the single point of whether they were properly advised of their constitutional rights when they tendered their plea of guilty on which is based the judgment here assaulted. Although appellants do not specify in their brief the constitutional rights of which the trial court failed to advise them, we assume they refer to the right to be informed of the nature of the charge against them and the consequences of their plea of guilty together with their right to tender their plea voluntarily without coercion, intimidation, inducements, ignorance or incomprehension as spoken of by the Supreme Court of the United States in Boykin v. Alabama.1
Reference to the record on appeal affirmatively establishes that prior to accepting appellants’ plea of guilty, the trial court made an independent determination that such pleas were given intelligently and voluntarily. Although the mechanics by which such determination was made do not affirmatively appear from the record, it is our view that the trial court substantially complied with the requirements set forth by this court in its decision rendered in the case of McPherson v. State 2 and later re-' affirmed in the case of Moore v. State.3
The judgment appealed is affirmed.
WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Enos v. State, 272 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…to withdraw was made: O’Brien v. State, 270 So. 2d 443, Fourth District Court of Appeal, Opinion filed December 19, 1972; Carroll v. State, Fla.App.1972, 259 So. 2d 539; Kelly v. State, Fla.App.1971, 254 So. 2d 22; Anderson v. State, Fla.App. 1971, 245 So. 2d 90. There are several cases which seem to indicate a contra view and which may deserve some analysis. There is dicta in Stovall v. State, Fla.App.1971, 252 So. 2d 376, which seems to indicate that a motion to withdraw must be filed before the matter ca…
Authorities Cited
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1969)
- McPHERSON v. State, 237 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)
- Moore v. State, 241 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)