THOMAS W. CLARK, 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.
Thomas W. Clark appeals the denial of his motion to vacate his guilty plea, arguing he was not advised of constitutional rights he was waiving. The court reverses and remands for an evidentiary hearing, emphasizing the importance of proper plea colloquy procedures and stenographic recording of guilty plea proceedings.
Clark is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his motion to vacate because the allegations, if true, would entitle him to relief, and the files and records do not conclusively refute the allegations. The trial court must conduct the hearing to determine whether the guilty pleas were knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made.
[1] A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a motion to vacate sentence if the motion alleges that a guilty plea was not voluntarily and understandingly made and…
[2] Clerk's minutes are inadequate to demonstrate that a defendant intelligently and knowingly entered guilty pleas when the trial proceedings were not stenographically repor…
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“These allegations, relating to a plea entered October 6, 1970, would entitle appellant to relief, if true. But true or not, such allegations would entitle appellant to an evidentiary hearing to determine the truth thereof where, as here, the files and records of the case do not conclusively refute these allegations.”
Establishes that when allegations in a Rule 3.850 motion are not conclusively refuted by the record, an evidentiary hearing must be granted.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClark entered guilty pleas to two separate informations on October 6, 1970. He alleges the pleas were not voluntarily and understandingly made because…
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 Plea Colloquy cases and more on FLexlaw
Thomas W. Clark appeals an order which denied without evidentiary hearing his Rule 3.850CrPR, 33 F.S.A. motion to vacate sentence.
The motion alleges that Clark’s guilty plea to two seperate informations was not voluntarily and understandingly made because he was not advised by either the court or his court-appointed counsel (nor otherwise made aware of the fact) that he was waiving certain constitutional rights. See Boykin v. Alabama, 1969, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274. These allegations, relating to a plea entered October 6, 1970, would entitle appellant to relief, if true. But true or not, such allegations would entitle appellant to an evidentiary hearing to determine the truth thereof where, as here, the files and records of the case do not conclusively refute these allegations. The trial proceedings at which the guilty pleas were entered were not stenographically reported and transcribed and made a part of the record. The clerk’s minutes, made a part of the record, are inadequate to show that the appellant had intelligently and knowingly entered the guilty pleas. We conclude that the order denying the motion to vacate must be reversed and this cause remanded with directions to the trial court to grant an evidentiary hearing on the motion.
The vast bulk of criminal cases is disposed of through guilty pleas. Understandably, the pressure of the trial court’s case load demands expeditious handling of such pleas. Nonetheless, a few additional minutes spent at this stage of the proceedings could save a great deal of time for both the trial court and the appellate court at some future date. As did the First District Court of Appeal in the case of McPherson v. State, Fla.App.1970, 237 So.2d 18 (reiterated in Williams v. State, Fla.App.1971, 245 So.2d 267), we invite the attention of the trial courts to the importance of causing the record of *553the proceedings conducted by them on a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to clearly reflect that the plea was knowingly and understandingly tendered by the defendant and was voluntarily made free from any threat, intimidation, coercion, promise or inducement of any kind. This court has recently noted the necessity for these elements to be clearly reflected in the record. (Theophilus) Williams v. State, Fla.App.1971, 245 So.2d 680. Plainly stated, if and when it becomes apparent that either a guilty plea or plea of nolo contendere is to be entered by a defendant, before the plea is entered by the defendant or accepted by the court, the following should be done: The State should secure a reporter to stenographically record verbatim all of the proceedings; thereafter, the court should canvass the matter with the defendant so as to clearly reflect in the proceedings that the plea is knowingly and understandingly tendered by the defendant with awareness of the constitutional rights being waived, and is voluntarily made free from any threat, intimidation, coercion, promise or inducement of any kind; with reasonable promptness thereafter the state should arrange for the reporter to transcribe the proceedings and file the same as a part of the court record.
In the long run, the few additional minutes required to comply with such a procedure will undoubtedly help to eliminate the necessity of an evidentiary hearing on a substantial number of post judgment motions to vacate. It would also allow for more effective use of the contempt powers in those cases where the allegations in a Rule 3.850 motion prove to be patently false. See e. g. Bumgarner v. State, Fla.App.1971, 245 So.2d 635; Bogan v. State, Fla.App.1968, 211 So.2d 74; Thomas v. State, Fla.App.1968, 210 So.2d 488; and Breamfield v. State, Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 484.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
WALDEN and CROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Parker v. State, 303 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…t voluntarily made because he was not advised that he was waiving certain constitutional rights are not conclusively refuted by the files and record of the proceedings at which such plea was entered. See, in particular, Clark v. State, Fla.App.1972, 256 So. 2d 551 and Brumley v. State, Fla.App.1969, 224 So. 2d 447; see also Davis v. State, Fla.App.1973, 277 So. 2d 300; Scarborough v. State, Fla.App.1973, 278 So. 2d 657. The order appealed from is reversed and this cause remanded for the purpose of affording…
-
Jackson v. State, 442 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…cord shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief.” After having considered the record and the specially permitted briefs and arguments of counsel, we find that an evidentiary hearing was necessary in this case. See Clark v. State, 256 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); Williams v. State, 245 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). This cause is therefore remanded for a hearing. Remanded.…
-
Parker v. State, 269 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Boykin v. Alabama, 1967, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274; Clark v. State, Fla.App.1972, 256 So. 2d 551, Rules 3.170(a) and 3.700(b), CrPR, 33 F.S.A. REED, C. J., WALDEN and CROSS, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1969)
- Eligha Thomas v. State, 210 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- Bogan v. State, 211 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- McPHERSON v. State, 237 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)
- Bumgarner v. State, 245 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Breamfield v. State, 166 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Williams v. State, 245 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- Theophilus Williams v. State, 245 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)