FREDERICK BROUGHTON PAXTON, 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.
Frederick Paxton appealed from the denial of his Rule 3.850 motion to vacate his guilty pleas and from his underlying judgment and sentence for robbery and resisting arrest with violence. The appellate court affirmed, holding that without proper assignments of error, it could not review Paxton's claim that the trial court failed to establish a factual basis for his guilty pleas as required by Rule 3.170(j).
The court could not address the merits of Paxton's claim because no assignments of error were properly filed in either appeal, and without such assignments, the appellate court lacked authority to consider the question of whether a factual basis was established for the pleas.
[1] Appellate courts cannot consider issues not properly raised by assignments of error.
[2] A trial court must determine that there is an underlying factual basis for a guilty plea before accepting it.
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 sole point raised by appellant's brief in the two consolidated appeals is that the lower court erred in accepting appellant's pleas of guilty to the offenses of robbery and resisting arrest with violence without first determining that there was an underlying factual basis for the pleas as required by Rule 3.170(j), F.R.Cr. P. No assignments of error having been filed in either appeal, we are unable to consider this question.”
Establishes the procedural bar preventing appellate review—the court cannot address the merits because no assignments of error were filed.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePaxton entered guilty pleas to robbery and resisting arrest with violence pursuant to a plea bargain. The trial judge questioned Paxton and determined…
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.
PER CURIAM.
The above two cases bearing the same style have been consolidated on appeal. Case No. W-284 is an appeal from an Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Judgment and Sentence Under Rule 3.850, F.R.Cr.P. In his order denying the motion, the trial judge stated as follows:
“1. Upon accepting Defendant’s plea of guilty pursuant to plea bargaining the Court determined by questioning Defendant that there were facts to support the plea of guilty and that it was voluntarily made.
2. Defendant is presently taking an appeal to the First District Court of appeal and this Court has appointed the Public Defender to represent him and the County of Marion to pay the costs thereof as provided by law. Defendant can assign on this appeal any errors he contends were made by this Court which can then be ruled upon by the Court of Appeal.
3. This Court heard evidence adduced by Defendant on his Motion to Mitigate sentence which was denied by this Court, which was the same as or similar to the evidence adduced by Defendant in support of his foregoing motion.”
Case No. V-310 is an appeal from appellant’s judgment and sentence and is the appeal which the trial judge referred to in Paragraph 2 of his Order Denying Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Judgment and Sentence. The sole point raised by appellant’s brief in the two consolidated appeals is that the lower court erred in accepting appellant’s pleas of guilty to the offenses of robbery and resisting arrest with violence without first determining that there was an underlying factual basis for the pleas as required by Rule 3.170(j), F.R.Cr. P. No assignments of error having been filed in either appeal, we are unable to consider this question. Redditt v. State, Fla., 84 So. 2d 317, Belger v. State, Fla.App. (1st) 171 So. 2d 574, Hernandez v. State, Fla.App. (1st) 273 So. 2d 130, cert. den., 277 So. 2d 287.
Affirmed.
McCORD and JOHNSON, JJ., concur. RAWLS, C. J., specially concurs.
RAWLS, Chief Judge
(specially concurring)
I agree with the majority that appellant’s allegation that the trial court failed to inquire as to the factual circumstances supporting his plea of guilty was not raised by assignment of error and cannot be reviewed by this Court. However, in my opinion, the record in this cause reflects that the trial judge adequately inquired as to the factual basis of appellant’s plea of guilty.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Saunders v. State, 319 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)…do so might uncover past perjury was not raised on this appeal either in the brief or in the assignments of error. The Appellate Court will not consider a question that has not been raised by an assignment of error. Paxton v. State, Fla.App. (1st), 304 So. 2d 485. Had this point been raised on this appeal then we could get into the knotty questions involved in whether or not appellant had the right to refuse to give testimony upon making only a blanket invocation of the Fifth Amendment with no indication tha…
-
Paxton v. Louie L. Wainwright, 349 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)…RAWLS, Judge. By petition for writ of habeas corpus, Paxton seeks a belated appeal from his 1974 convictions of robbery and resisting an officer with violence. Petitioner refers us to this court’s opinion in Paxton v. State, 304 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), and alleges that this court affirmed his convictions without reaching the merits of his appeal because no assignments of error were filed therein. In considering the instant petition, we have re-examined the original file in Pa…
Authorities Cited
- Fogle v. Fogle, 84 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 1956)
- Grady Allen Belger v. State, 171 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)
- Hernandez v. State, 273 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)
- Fla. Dust Control Serv., Inc. v. Byrnes, 277 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 1973)
- Odum v. State, 277 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 1973)