KENNETH LEE FORD, 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.
Kenneth Lee Ford appealed his nolo contendere plea to a robbery charge, arguing the trial court failed to explicitly advise him of his rights against self-incrimination, to jury trial, and to confront accusers. The Florida appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that when a plea is intelligently and voluntarily made as part of a trial strategy, the trial court is not required to enumerate each constitutional right step-by-step.
The trial court did not err in accepting the plea. When a nolo contendere plea is intelligently and voluntarily entered as part of trial strategy and the record demonstrates the defendant's understanding of the consequences and the advice of counsel, the trial court is not required to enumerate each constitutional right step-by-step.
[1] A trial court may accept a nolo contendere plea when the record, viewed in its totality, demonstrates the plea was intelligently and voluntarily entered, even if the cour…
[2] A defendant's knowing and voluntary entry of a nolo contendere plea, particularly when part of a trial strategy, may obviate the need for explicit advisement of all const…
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“When viewed in its totality, the record of the arraignment justifies the acceptance of the nolo contendere plea. Defendant's attorney had counseled with him on his plea, and the plea was tendered in order to procure the dismissal of the second robbery count.”
Establishes the court's holistic approach to evaluating plea validity based on the totality of circumstances rather than checklist compliance.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFord was charged with two counts of robbery. Pursuant to plea bargaining, he pleaded nolo contendere to one count in exchange for dismissal of the sec…
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 Right To Confront Accusers cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
Appellant-defendant was charged with two counts of robbery.
Pursuant to plea bargaining, he pled nolo contendere to one count, and the other count was dismissed. He was sentenced to a term of ten years. The sole issue is whether the trial court erred when it accepted defendant’s plea without advising him of his right against self-incrimination; of his right to a jury trial; and of his right to confront his accusers. At the arraignment, the following occurred : 1. The defendant was informed of the charges against him.
2. He stated that he had not been threatened, intimidated or forced to plead nolo contendere.
3. He advised that he was voluntarily pleading nolo contendere.
4. He informed the court that he had a tenth grade education.
5. He admitted that he was the driver of the car at the time of the robbery, and his attorney stated that he was a principal to the charge.
6. He stated that he was satisfied with the advice and services of his attorney.
7. He was informed that he could receive a maximum sentence of life.
8. He stated that he had been promised nothing more than a presentence investigation.
9. The court then inquired if defendant still wished to plead nolo contendere, and defendant responded that he did. When viewed in its totality, the record of the arraignment justifies the acceptance of the nolo contendere plea. Defendant’s attorney had counseled with him on his plea, and the plea was tendered in order to procure the dismissal of the second robbery count.
The record before us reveals that the nolo contendere plea was intelligently and voluntarily entered, and that the defendant was aware of the consequences. In fact, defendant makes no argument that his plea was not intelligently and voluntarily made. He only complains that the trial court failed to advise him of each and every right he had, step by step, which is not required where a record, like the one before us, shows that what occurred was a part of his trial strategy. Kelly v. State, 254 So. 2d 22 (Fla.App.1971); Sumner v. State, 289 So. 2d 434 (Fla.App.1974); Mower v. State, 308 So. 2d 586 (Fla.App.1975). In addition, the defendant does’ not contend that he has Been prejudiced, nor does the record show prejudice. Williams v. State, 316 So. 2d 267 (Fla.1975).
Affirmed.
BOYER, C. J., and McCORD, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lurea Clark v. State, 317 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)…Kelly v. State, Fla.App. (1st), 254 So. 2d 22 (1971); Hall v. State, Fla. App. (4th), 273 So. 2d 90 (1973); Dill v. State, Fla.App. (1st), 248 So. 2d 502 (1971); People v. Ferguson, 383 Mich. 645, 178 N.W. 2d 490; and Ford v. State, Fla.App. (1st), 317 So. 2d 473. Opinion filed August 12, 1975. Affirmed. RAWLS, Acting C. J., and MILLS, J., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 316 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1975)
- Williams v. State, 254 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Mower v. State, 308 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Sumner v. State, 289 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)