OSCAR ARTHUR ROSS, 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.
Oscar Ross appealed his conviction for assault with intent to commit robbery, challenging the trial court's failure to make an oral adjudication of guilt and its allegedly inadequate inquiry into the voluntariness and factual basis of his guilty plea. The appellate court affirmed, holding that a written judgment of guilty rendered in open court satisfies procedural requirements even without an oral adjudication, and that the trial court's questioning adequately established the plea's validity.
The trial court did not err. A written judgment of guilty rendered in open court and subsequently filed and recorded is sufficient compliance with procedural rules even without an oral adjudication. The trial court's questioning adequately established both a factual basis for the plea and its voluntary and knowing nature, with no showing of prejudice or manifest injustice by appellant.
[1] A written judgment of guilt rendered by a judge in open court and subsequently filed and recorded is sufficient to validate a judgment, even without an oral adjudication…
[2] A defendant must show prejudice or manifest injustice to warrant reversal of a judgment and vacation of a plea based on the trial court's failure to establish a factual b…
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“An oral in-court adjudication of guilt is unquestionably desirable, certainly customary, but not essential to the validity of the judgment when there is a written judgment of guilty rendered by the judge in open court and subsequently filed and recorded.”
Establishes that written adjudication satisfies procedural requirements without oral pronouncement
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRoss was charged with robbery. Through plea negotiation, he withdrew his not guilty plea and entered a guilty plea to the lesser included offense of a…
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
OWEN, Judge.
Appellant, charged with robbery, as a result of plea negotiation withdrew his previously entered plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty to the lesser included offense of assault with intent to commit robbery, for which offense he was adjudged guilty and sentenced to fifteen years in prison.
Appellant’s first point is that the court erred when it pronounced sentence without first adjudicating him to be guilty. His premise for this point is that the court reporter’s transcribed notes of the proceedings at the time the court accepted the plea and at the time of the subsequent sentencing do not disclose that the court made an oral adjudication of guilt. An oral in-court adjudication of guilt is unquestionably desirable, certainly customary, but not essential to the validity of the judgment when there is a written judgment of guilty rendered by the judge in open court and subsequently filed and recorded.
The record reflects that such written judgment was rendered in open court at the time of sentencing and was subsequently filed and recorded. This is a sufficient compliance with Rule 3.670 RCrP. The judgment and sentence are complete as they now stand on the record and absolutely no useful purpose could be served by our remanding this case to the trial court simply to go through the unnecessary formality of an oral adjudication of guilt as suggested by appellant and concurred in by appellee. But cf. Matera v. State, 218 So. 2d 180 (Fla.App.3rd, 1969), which relied upon Hart v. State, 60 So. 2d 489 (Fla.1952).
This last cited case required a remand for the purpose of entering a proper judgment because the judgment which had been entered failed to expressly adjudicate appellant guilty of the crime charged. Such is not the case here, as the judgment entered did expressly adjudicate appellant guilty of the crime charged.
Appellant’s second point is that the trial court erred in failing to establish a factual basis for the plea of guilty. While the court’s questioning in this respect was limited to the inquiry of whether appellant was actually guilty of the charge of assault with intent to commit robbery, to which an affirmative response was given by appellant, there is no showing by appellant of prejudice or manifest injustice, therefore no basis for a reversal of the judgment and vacation of the plea. Williams v. State, 316 So. 2d 267 (Fla.1975); Hall v. State, 316 So. 2d 279 (Fla.1975).
Appellant’s third point is that the court erred by failing to establish that the plea was knowingly, willingly, understandingly and voluntarily entered. While the court’s interrogation of appellant before accepting the guilty plea was not as extensive as appellant now suggests it should have been, nor did the court take advantage of the provisions of Rule 3.171(c) RCrP, the scope of the inquiry was adequate to withstand the attack now made on it.
The judgment and sentence are severally affirmed.
MAGER and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brantley v. State, 32 So. 3d 89 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…nd written sentences should be cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) proceeding”). The lack of an oral adjudication of guilt does not affect the validity of a written judgment of guilt that is properly ren [*90] dered. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.670; Ross v. State, 325 So. 2d 430, 430-31 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Matera v. State, 218 So. 2d 180, 184 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969). Because there is no requirement that a judgment of guilt must be orally pronounced, the transcript in this case does not provide Mr. Brantley with a basis for reli…
-
Roudabush v. State, 502 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…PER CURIAM. With respect to the contention that the trial court erred in failing to allow appellant to withdraw his plea, we affirm. See Williams v. State, 316 So. 2d 267 (Fla.1975); Ross v. State, 325 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Monroe v. State, 318 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). With respect to the $200 costs imposed pursuant to section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985), we also affirm. Appellant contends that these costs were improperly imposed with…
-
Grimsley v. State, 869 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Ross v. State, 325 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). SHARP, W., THOMPSON and MONACO, 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
- Williams v. State, 316 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1975)
- Matera v. State, 218 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Fid. & Cas. Co. of N.Y. v. Bedingfield, 60 So.2d 489 (Fla. 1952)
- Foy B. Hall v. State, 316 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 1975)