JAMES W. LAHANE, 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.
Court reversed denial of Rule 3.850 motion to vacate plea, holding that defendant was entitled to evidentiary hearing on claim that nolo contendere plea was involuntary due to broken sentencing promise.
A defendant alleging that his nolo contendere plea was involuntary because of a broken promise regarding sentencing is entitled to an evidentiary hearing when the trial court's inquiry at plea acceptance does not adequately address the specific allegation.
[1] A trial court must conduct an adequate inquiry into allegations that a guilty or nolo contendere plea was induced by promises regarding sentencing, and failure to do so r…
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 intelligence“Nobody promised you you were going to walk out the front door free for entering a plea?”
The trial court's inquiry at the time of accepting the plea, which the appellate court found inadequate to address the specific allegation of a promised sentence.
Appellant entered a nolo contendere plea to grand larceny after allegedly being promised by counsel and the prosecutor that he would receive a one-yea…
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 Involuntary Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
OWEN, Chief Judge.
Appellant’s motion to vacate under Rule 3.850, RCrP was denied without an evidentiary hearing. We conclude that this was error. Appellant alleged that his plea of nolo contendere to the offense of grand larceny was rendered involuntary because it had been entered upon the promise of his counsel and the prosecutor that the court would sentence him to one year only, but the court later sentenced him to four years instead. The record reflects that at the time of accepting the plea, the only inquiry conducted by the court relative to the question of whether any promise had been made to appellant in exchange for the guilty plea was the question by the court, “Nobody promised you you were going to walk out the front door free for entering a plea?”, to which the appellant had responded in the negative. Obviously, such an inquiry does not reach the question of whether anyone had promised the defendant that he would receive a particular sentence or any leniency from the court in exchange for the plea. The allegation not having been conclusively refuted by the record, appellant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing. State v. Reynolds, Fla.1970, 238 So. 2d 598, 600; State v. Weeks, Fla.1964, 166 So. 2d 892, 897; Clark v. State, Fla.App.1972, 256 So. 2d 551; Brumley v. State, Fla.App.1969, 224 So. 2d 447, 449.
The order appealed is reversed and this cause remanded for the purpose of affording appellant an evidentiary hearing on his motion.
Reversed and remanded.
CROSS and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Weeks, 166 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 1964)
- State v. Madison Lee Reynolds, 238 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 1970)
- Maxwood Clarence Brumley v. State, 224 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)
- Clark v. State, 256 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)