STANLEY E. BOYD, APPELLANT-PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE-RESPONDENT
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.
Stanley Boyd appealed his guilty plea conviction for carrying a concealed firearm, arguing the trial court erred by accepting his plea without investigating the factual basis for it. The Florida appellate court affirmed, holding that while federal courts require such an inquiry, Florida courts only require that a guilty plea be voluntary and made with understanding of the charge.
The trial court did not err. While federal courts require a factual basis inquiry under Fed. Rules Crim. Proc. Rule 11, Florida courts do not have such a requirement. Florida law requires only that the court determine the plea is voluntary and made with understanding of the nature of the charge, which the record shows was done here.
[1] A timely direct appeal precludes a delayed appeal.
[2] A state court is not required to establish a factual basis for a guilty plea before accepting it.
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“While this is a pre-requisite in the federal trial courts because of a rule requirement, Fed.Rules Cr.Proc. Rule 11, 18 U.S.C.A., it is not a requirement in the state courts of this jurisdiction.”
Distinguishes federal requirement for factual basis inquiry from Florida's lack of such requirement
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBoyd was charged with carrying a concealed firearm under Florida Statute section 790.01(2). He was represented by private counsel, initially pleaded n…
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 Delayed Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Stanley Eugene Boyd, was informed against in the Criminal Court of Record in and for Orange County, Florida with the crime of carrying a concealed firearm contrary to F.S. section 790.01(2), F.S.A. Represented by privately retained counsel, appellant withdrew his previously entered plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty to the crime as charged in the information. He was adjudged guilty, sentenced and timely filed notice of appeal *706on November 24, 1970. This is case No. 70-1040.
On December 9, 1970, appellant made application to the trial court for an order of insolvency, the order being entered the same date. Nine days later, apparently without filing a motion under Rule 6.8, F. A.R., 32 F.S.A., for an order directing the reporter to transcribe the proceedings before the court, appellant filed an original proceeding in the Supreme Court of Florida for a writ of mandamus to require the clerk of the trial court to produce the minutes of the proceedings. A rule nisi was entered, and upon response thereto the Supreme Court entered its order of March 18, 1971, transferring the mandamus proceedings to this court with directions to determine whether petitioner was entitled to a delayed appeal. The transferred mandamus proceeding is assigned our Case No. 71-362.
The order transferring the mandamus proceeding to this court implies that we have the jurisdiction to (and should) decide the matter. Since appeal No. 70-1040 is a timely direct appeal, appellant is not entitled to a delayed appeal. The rule nisi heretofore issued is discharged and the petition for writ of mandamus dismissed in Case No. 71-362.
The sole question presented on the direct appeal is whether the court erred in accepting appellant’s plea of guilty without undertaking an investigation as to the existence of a factual basis for the guilty plea. While this is a pre-requisite in the federal trial courts because of a rule requirement, Fed.Rules Cr.Proc. Rule 11, 18 U.S.C.A., it is not a requirement in the state courts of this jurisdiction. All that is required before accepting a guilty plea is that the court determine that the plea is made voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the charge. Rule 1.170(a) CrPR, 33 F.S.A.
The record of the trial court proceedings at which the guilty plea was tendered and accepted by the court affirmatively discloses the detailed inquiry which the court conducted of the appellant personally to determine not only that appellant’s plea was made voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the charge, but also that appellant was fully advised as to the constitutional rights which he waived by entering the guilty plea. No error has been shown. The judgment in appeal No. 70-1040 is affirmed.
CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
James H. Church v. State, 299 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…ndere. The court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, and shall not accept the plea without first determining that the plea is made voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the charge.” . See Boyd v. State, Fla.App.1971, 255 So. 2d 705, in which we held, under the rules then in effect, that the state trial court was not required to determine a factual basis for the guilty plea before accepting the same.…