SAMUEL ALLEN TUCKER, 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.
The court holds that Florida Rule 3.170(j) does not require a trial court to determine a factual basis for a plea of nolo contendere, even though it does require such a determination for guilty pleas. The decision interprets the statutory language and legislative intent to exclude nolo contendere pleas from the factual basis requirement.
No. Rule 3.170(j) requires a factual basis determination only for guilty pleas, not for nolo contendere pleas. The rule's language distinguishes between the two types of pleas, and this interpretation is supported by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, on which the rule was based.
[1] A factual basis is not required for a plea of nolo contendere.
[2] Rule 3.170(j), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, requires a factual basis determination only for pleas of guilty, not for pleas of nolo contendere.
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 determination of a factual basis for a plea of nolo contendere is not required”
The court's conclusion on the central legal issue regarding factual basis requirements for nolo contendere pleas
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Tucker entered a plea of nolo contendere to a criminal charge. The trial court ascertained a sufficient factual basis for the plea, but the …
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
MILLS, Judge.
Appellant-defendant contends the sole issue raised by this appeal is whether the trial court determined that there was a factual basis for defendant’s plea of nolo contendere. Appellee-State agrees. We are of the opinion that the crucial issue here is whether Rule 3.170(j), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, requires the establishment of a factual basis for a plea of nolo contendere.
From the outset, let us say that the record discloses that a sufficient factual basis for the plea of nolo contendere was ascertained by the trial court. Now, let us move to the crucial issue.
We are of the opinion that Rule 3.-170(j), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, does not require the determination of a factual issue for a plea of nolo contend-ere.
Paragraph (j) of Rule 3.170 provides:
“Responsibility of Court on Pleas. No plea of guilty or nolo contendere shall be accepted by a court without first determining, in open court, with means of recording the proceedings stenographically or by mechanical means, that the circumstances surrounding the plea reflect a full understanding of the significance of the plea and its voluntariness, and that there is a factual basis for the plea of guilty.” (Emphasis supplied)
* % * * * *
Effective 1 February 1973, Rule 3.170 was amended to add paragraph (j). The committee note indicates that this paragraph was from the first sentence of former Rule 3.170(a) with the addition of the requirement of a determination of a factual basis for a plea of guilty as provided by the last sentence of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. West’s Desk Copy, Florida Rules of Court 1975.
The last sentence of Rule 11 provides “The court shall not enter a judgment upon a plea of guilty unless it is satisfied that there is a factual basis for the plea”. The last sentence of Rule 11 was added in 1966 and the committee note states that for a variety of reasons it is desirable in some cases to permit entry of judgment upon a plea of nolo contendere without inquiry into the factual basis for the plea. The last sentence is not, therefore, applicable to pleas of nolo contendere. 8 Moore’s Federal Practice 11^4. Also, see American Bar Association, Approved Draft 1968, Standards Relating to Pleas of Guilty, page 34.
In view of the foregoing, which is readily apparent from the verbiage used in the applicable rules, the determination of a factual basis for a plea of nolo contendere is not required.
Affirmed.
McCORD, J., concurs.
BOYER, Acting C. J., concurs specially.
BOYER, Acting Chief Judge
(concurring specially).
I concur in the result reached. Please see Estes v. State, Fla.App.1st 1974, 294 So. 2d 122 and Mower v. State, Fla.App.1st 1975, 308 So. 2d 586.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baxley v. State, 317 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)…to direct the trial court’s attention to the errors. The errors are not fundamental not prejudicial. They may be corrected so that they speak the truth. The determination of a factual basis for a plea of no contest is not required. Tucker v. State, 316 So. 2d 297, opinion filed June 30, 1975 (Fla.App. 1st). Remanded to correct the record as stated above; otherwise, affirmed. BOYER, C. J., and McCORD, J., concur.…
-
Perrin Shappley, Jr. v. State, 317 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed on- authority of Tucker v. State, 316 So. 2d 297, First District Court of Appeal, Opinion filed June 30, 1975. BOYER, C. J., and MILLS and Mc-CORD, JJ., concur.…
-
Clary v. State, 315 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)…PER CURIAM. Since the filing of this court’s opinion on April 21, 1975, in this cause, we have ruled in Tucker v. State, Fla.App., 316 So. 2d 297, opinion filed June 30, 1975 that a factual basis for a plea of nolo con-tendere is not required. Our previous opinion herein is therefore vacated, and the judgments and sentences are affirmed. RAWLS, C. J., and JOHNSON and McCORD, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Estes v. State, 294 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Mower v. State, 308 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)