JERRY SCHAEFER, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed a guilty plea conviction for issuing a worthless check, rejecting challenges to the trial court's plea inquiry and denial of withdrawal, while preserving the defendant's right to challenge voluntariness under Rule 3.850.
A trial court's acceptance of a guilty plea and denial of withdrawal are affirmed where no timely motion to withdraw was made and the record lacks adequate basis for the asserted error.
[1] A timely motion to withdraw a guilty plea is required; absent such motion, the trial court's denial of withdrawal cannot be reviewed for error.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSchaefer was charged in April 1969 with issuing a worthless check in violation of F.S. Section 832.05(3); he pleaded guilty on September 29, 1970, and…
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 Withdrawal Of Guilty Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant Schaefer was charged in Palm Beach County, Florida, on the 28th of April 1969 with having issued a worthless check for the purpose of obtaining things of value in violation of F.S. Section 832.05(3), F.S.A. On 29 September 1970 the defendant pled guilty and was sentenced on 22 January 1971 to confinement in the Palm Beach County jail for a period of one year. This appeal is from the judgment and sentence. The plea of guilty was obviously the result of plea-bargaining between the defendant’s attorney and the prosecuting attorney for the state.
Appellant’s first point on appeal questions the sufficiency of the trial court’s inquiry of appellant before accepting his plea. We affirm as to this point on the theory expressed by the First District Court of Appeal in Kelly v. State, Fla.App.1971, 254 So.2d 22.
Appellant’s second point charges that the trial court erred in failing to allow appellant to withdraw his guilty plea. We affirm as to the second point on two grounds. First, no timely motion to withdraw was made. See Rule 3.170(f), CrPR, 33 F.S.A., and Stapleton v. State, Fla.App. 1970, 239 So.2d 140, 142. Secondly, in our opinion, there is no adequate basis in the record to support the asserted error.
The judgment and sentence are affirmed without prejudice to the right of appellant *122to attack'voluntariness in fact of the guilty plea by appropriate motion under Rule 3.-850, CrPR.
Affirmed.
REED, C. J., and MAGER, J., concur.
WALDEN, J., dissents, with opinion.
(dissenting).
I am simply of the view that defendant has made an adequate showing in fact and law and the court should here reverse and remand with instructions to permit the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea and plead over.
WALDEN, Judge
(dissenting).
I am simply of the view that defendant has made an adequate showing in fact and law and the court should here reverse and remand with instructions to permit the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea and plead over.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schaefer v. State, 268 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1972)…Certiorari denied. 264 So. 2d 121. ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS, and BOYD, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 254 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Stapleton v. State, 239 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)