ARTHUR M. TELLIER, 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 held that the trial court erred in accepting a guilty plea to grand larceny when the stated factual basis only supported petit larceny. The other guilty pleas were affirmed.
[1] A trial court's failure to establish a factual basis for a guilty plea is not grounds for reversal absent a showing of prejudice or manifest injustice.
[2] A factual basis for a guilty plea must align with the offense charged; a statement indicating property value below the statutory threshold for grand larceny supports only…
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 intelligenceAppellant pleaded guilty to four offenses, including grand larceny, as part of a plea bargain. He appealed, arguing the trial court failed to establis…
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 Petit Larceny cases and more on FLexlaw
McCORD, Judge.
Appellant was charged with a number of offenses and as the result of plea bargaining he pled guilty to four offenses and the remaining charges were nolle prossed. Appellant’s convictions were of (1) grand larceny (2) sale of marijuana (3) possession of in excess of five grams of marijuana and (4) sale of phencyclidine. He appeals from the convictions and sentences.
Appellant contends that in accepting his guilty pleas to the charges numbered (2), (3) and (4) above, the trial court erred in failing to establish a factual basis for the guilty pleas. We find this contention to be without merit. Appellant has not shown either prejudice or manifest injustice resulting to him from the trial court’s failure to establish such factual bases. See Williams v. State, Fla., 316 So. 2d 267, opinion filed June 23, 1975 and Hall v. State, Fla., 316 So. 2d 279, opinion filed June 23, 1975.
Appellant also contends that the court erred in accepting his guilty plea to the charge of grand larceny in that he did not in fact plead guilty to grand larceny. The record shows that at the time of entering the aforesaid guilty pleas, appellant made the following statement as to the charge of grand larceny (of an outboard motor) :
“Your Honor, that motor, we’ve had it appraised and it’s only worth the value of $25. We had it appraised by a man from Marineland Outboard Motors, and he said it was worth only $25.”
The court made no comment regarding appellant’s above-quoted statement and accepted the guilty pleas which included the guilty plea to grand larceny. Such was error as to the grand larceny charge as the only factual basis shown by the record for that plea appears to be a factual basis for a plea of petit larceny.
Appellant’s aforesaid convictions and sentences other than for grand larceny are affirmed.. As to the grand larceny conviction and sentence, the cause is remanded for further inquiry by the trial court and to receive evidence pursuant to the recent opinion of the Supreme Court in State v. Lyles, Fla., 316 So. 2d 277, opinion filed June 23, 1975.
BOYER, C. J., and RAWLS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 316 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1975)
- State v. Lyles, 316 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 1975)
- Foy B. Hall v. State, 316 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 1975)