BETTY HARO, 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.
The appellate court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the guilty plea.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to withdraw a guilty plea when the record shows the plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily without def…
[2] A trial judge's predisposition to grant probation conditioned on future cooperation with authorities does not constitute a binding promise that invalidates a subsequent g…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant pleaded guilty to receiving stolen property and sought to withdraw the plea, alleging a promise of probation. The trial judge had indicated …
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 Negotiations cases and more on FLexlaw
[*237] PER CURIAM.
Defendant-appellant seeks review of a sentence of one year in the county jail (6 months thereof being suspended) entered pursuant to a plea of guilty to the charge of buying, receiving or concealing stolen property [§ 811.16, Fla.Stat.].
Appellant first urges as error the trial judge’s denial of her motion to withdraw her plea of guilty..
Hereunder, defense counsel alleges that a plea negotiation was made at a side-bar conference and that the trial judge agreed to place the defendant on probation if a pre-sentence investigation demonstrated that defendant had no prior criminal record. As a result thereof, the defendant changed her plea of not guilty to guilty of the charge.
A careful scrutiny of the transcript of proceedings in the instant case reflects with unmistakable clarity that the trial judge merely was predisposed to place defendant on probation if she would cooperate with the prosecution and the police in helping solve a burglary which ultimately resulted in the charge against the defendant. It is equally clear that the trial judge did not make any definite promises to the appellant and took great pains to ascertain that her guilty plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily and without any promises or inducements therefor. Furthermore, the record leaves no doubt that appellant was given ample opportunity to cooperate with the authorities and having failed repeatedly to do so, left the judge little choice but to impose the jail sentence cited here-inabove. Hence, we have concluded that the appellant has failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in denying her motion. See Mason v. State, Fla.App.1969, 221 So. 2d 10 and Cf. Costello v. State, Fla.1972, 260 So. 2d 198.
After an examination of appellant’s second point on appeal, we have determined that no reversible error has been made to appear therein. See Hall v. State, Fla.App.1974, 303 So. 2d 417; Mower v. State, Fla.App.1975, 308 So. 2d 586.
Accordingly, the judgment and sentence presented for our review are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Costello v. State, 260 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 1972)
- Mower v. State, 308 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Jensen v. Kaplan, 303 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Mason v. State, 221 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)