LIONEL CHASE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Lionel Chase appealed his conviction following acceptance of a plea of nolo contendere to rape and related charges, arguing the trial court failed to conduct an adequate inquiry into his plea. The court affirmed, finding the trial court properly inquired into Chase's understanding and voluntary nature of the plea.
The trial court did not err in accepting the plea. The court made adequate inquiry by having counsel confirm all rights were explained, ascertaining the plea was voluntary and without threats or promises, and obtaining the defendant's assurance he was satisfied with his counsel and the proceedings.
[1] A nolo contendere plea is valid when entered after the defendant's counsel confirms that all rights have been explained, the plea is offered after negotiations with the s…
[2] A defendant's assertion of facts inconsistent with the trial record is not properly raised on direct appeal, but rather through a motion for post-conviction relief.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“The contention of the appellant is without merit on this record. His privately retained counsel informed the trial court that all of the defendant's rights had been explained to him.”
The court's finding that the trial court adequately inquired into the defendant's understanding of his rights before accepting the plea.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChase was charged with rape, two assaults with intent to commit rape, aggravated assault, and escape. He offered a plea of nolo contendere after plea …
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 Bargaining cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
When brought to trial on charges of rape, two assaults with intent to commit rape, aggravated assault and escape, the appellant-defendant offered a plea of nolo contendere which was accepted. Certain plea bargaining between the defendant and the prosecutor had taken place prior to the offer of plea, as a consequence of which, at the time the plea was entered the prosecutor announced to the court that the defendant was to be sentenced to life imprisonment on the rape charge and that sentences on the other charged offenses were to be served concurrently therewith. The sentences were imposed. Thereafter the defendant appealed, and contends that the judgment and sentence should be vacated, his pleas withdrawn, and that he be tried on not guilty pleas, for the reason that “the trial court erred in accepting the plea of nolo contendere without a full and adequate inquiry.”
The contention of the appellant is without merit on this record. His privately retained counsel informed the trial court that all of the defendant’s rights had been explained to him. The plea was offered after certain negotiations with the state attorney. The fact that the state attorney advised the court as to the agreement regarding sentences (with no objection thereto being voiced by defendant’s counsel) was sufficient indication of plea bargaining to such effect. The court inquired of the defendant and ascertained that the plea was being made without threats or promises, and received defendant’s assurance that he was satisfied with his counsel and with what was done.
The state points out, and properly so, that if, as indicated by the appellant’s brief, he now seeks to claim or assert facts inconsistent with or contrary to those shown or indicated by the record, the vehicle therefor is not appeal, but more appropriately a motion under Rule 3.850 CrPR 33 F.S.A. No reversible error having been made to appear, the judgment and sentences are affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thomas v. State, 299 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274) the certainty or the uncertainty as to whether the guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily made prompts further inquiry therein, but, as held by this court in Chase v. State, Fla. App.1973, 284 So. 2d 459, the vehicle for seeking relief in such instance is not by [*132] appeal, but more appropriately by the filing of a motion in the trial court under Rule 3.850 CrPR. The judgment is affirmed, without prejudice to the appellant to use of the alternat…