DARRELL PIRTLE, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 court held that a guilty plea must have a factual basis, but affirmed the decision because no prejudice or manifest injustice was shown.
The defendant entered a non-negotiated guilty plea voluntarily and with knowledge of the consequences. However, the record failed to establish a factu…
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 Factual Basis For Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
OVERTON, Justice.
This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Second District Court of Appeal reported at 303 So. 2d 89 (Fla.App.2d 1974). The decision sought to be reviewed conflicts with Lyles v. State, 299 So. 2d 146 (Fla.App.1st 1974).
At issue is the failure of the trial judge to properly determine a factual basis for the guilty plea, as required in Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(j). The Second District certified, as being of great public interest, the same question as is set forth in Williams v. State, 316 So. 2d 267 (Fla.1975), and Hall v. State, 316 So. 2d 279 (Fla.1975). We have jurisdiction under Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution.
We have examined the record in this cause, which establishes that this was a non-negotiated plea made voluntarily by the defendant with knowledge of the consequences. The record fails to establish a factual basis for the plea. There has been no showing, however, of any kind of prejudice or manifest injustice by the defend ant. Williams v. State, supra, is therefore controlling. The decision of the District Court is affirmed.
, It is so ordered.
ADKINS, C. J., ROBERTS and ENGLAND, JJ., and CARLISLE, Circuit Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
KEN v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 685 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…aid for indisputably covered and untainted losses. Applying the rule that such issues arc better first resolved by the trial court, see Mendes v. Dowelanco Indus. LTDA., 651 So. 2d 776, 779 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); City of Coral Gables, v. Puiggros, 316 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), we do not now decide this question. We do point out, however, its resolution may involve such factors as (a) whether, as a matter of policy interpretation, see Stuyvesant Ins. Co. v. Butler, 314 So. 2d 567 (Fla.1975), structure a…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 316 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1975)
- Foy B. Hall v. State, 316 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 1975)
- Lyles v. State, 299 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Brown v. State, 303 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Pirtle v. State, 303 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)