JOSEPH NUZZO, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 1972-11-08
Nos. 71-906, 71-907
LILES, A. C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur., McNULTY, J., dissents.
269 So. 2d 379 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1972) Caution
Cited by 2 cases

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals the denial of his motion to withdraw his plea of guilty to each of two informations and enter pleas of not guilty thereto.

Appellant proffered testimony to corroborate his allegations in the motion; however, the trial court denied the proffer and summarily denied the motion.

We hold that the appellant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing in view of the allegations of his motion which were in part corroborated by the proffered evidence.1

Reversed and remanded.

LILES, A. C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.

McNULTY, J., dissents.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Onnestad v. State, 404 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
    …ndant did not knowingly and intelligently enter said plea of guilty.” No specifics were provided. Such an allegation, unsupported by any proof, can never constitute a basis for the withdrawal of a guilty plea. State v. Braverman. Cf. Nuzzo v. State, 269 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972) (since appellant proffered testimony to corroborate allegations in his motion to withdraw guilty plea, trial court’s denial of proffer and summary denial of motion constituted reversible error). Appellant cites Kadar v. State, 37…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw