STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
GLENWOOD PERRY, RESPONDENT
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 First District Court of Appeal reported at 308 So. 2d 173. The decision sought to be reviewed conflicts, as expressed in the opinion, with Lyles v. State, 299 So. 2d 146 (Fla.App. 1st 1974) and Estes v. State, 294 So. 2d 122 (Fla.App. 1st 1974). At issue is the trial court’s failure to determine a factual basis for a guilty plea, as prescribed in Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170 (j). The First District certified the case to this Court in view of the aforementioned conflict.
We reverse upon the authority of Williams v. State, 316 So. 2d 267 (Fla.1975), and Estes v. State, 316 So. 2d 276 (Fla.1975) and remand for proceedings not inconsistent therewith.
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 (11 total)
-
Bertrand Obanion v. State, 496 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…has stated, “the mere filing of a motion to suppress is not tantamount to a finding of law that the speedy trial demander does not have a bona fide desire to obtain trial, that he is not prepared and will not be prepared for trial.” State v. Embry, 322 So. 2d 515, 518 (Fla.1975); see Perry v. State, 436 So. 2d 426, 428 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Finally, we address a point relied on by the trial court to support its finding of defense unavailability, although the point is not pressed by the state on this appeal.…
-
State v. Kaufman, 421 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…investigated his case and that he is prepared or will be prepared for trial [within five days]. 253 So. 2d at 130. See also Turner v. Pellerin, 272 So. 2d 129 (Fla.1973); Furland v. Conkling, 405 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Thus, State v. Embry, 322 So. 2d 515 (Fla.1975), is not in point. There, the court held .that the filing of a motion to suppress was not indicative of the lack of a bona fide desire for trial. The order discharging appellee is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.…
-
Winford Dickey v. Honorable Raymond T. McNEAL, 445 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…for further discovery after filing demand); State ex rel. Furland v. Conkling, 405 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (demand [*696] invalid where notice of deposition filed same day as demand, with deposition set for 11 days later). Cf. State v. Embry, 322 So. 2d 515 (Fla.1975) (the mere filing of a motion to suppress does not ipso facto negate a previously filed demand). In the instant case, the act of the defendant giving rise to a finding of unpreparedness and lack of diligent investigation is Dickey’s hirin…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 316 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1975)
- Estes v. State, 294 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Lyles v. State, 299 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Estes v. State, 316 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 1975)
- Pfiefer v. State, 308 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Colston v. State, 308 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)