STEPHEN P. SCHELLER, 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 reversed and remanded because the trial judge failed to conduct any colloquy regarding the voluntariness of the defendant's guilty plea as required by Rule 3.170(j) RCrP.
A trial judge must conduct an affirmative colloquy on the record to establish that a guilty plea was entered intelligently and voluntarily before accepting it.
[1] A trial court must create an affirmative record through colloquy demonstrating that a guilty plea was entered intelligently and voluntarily before accepting the plea, tho…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“A guilty plea, to be accepted, requires an affirmative showing that it was entered intelligently and voluntarily. This is fundamental to the validity of any such plea since after it has been accepted, nothing remains but to enter judgment and sentence.”
The court explaining the constitutional and procedural requirement for accepting guilty pleas.
Appellant Scheller entered a guilty plea, and the trial judge accepted it without any inquiry into or discussion of the voluntariness of the plea.…
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 Guilty Plea Validity cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Judge.
In this appeal appellant/defendant contends the trial judge erred in failing to inquire into the voluntariness of his plea as required by Rule 3.170(j) RCrP. The appellant’s point on appeal is well taken in that we find this record is completely devoid of any colloquy whatsoever on the question of voluntariness of the appellant’s plea. A guilty plea, to be accepted, requires an affirmative showing that it was entered intelligently and voluntarily. This is fundamental to the validity of any such plea since after it has been accepted, nothing remains but to enter judgment and sentence. See, Boykin v. Alabama, 1969, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274; Williams v. State, Fla. 1975, 316 So. 2d 267. And, although we have held on various occasions that the Boykin requirement does not require the trial judge to follow any particular litany in making a determination of voluntariness and understanding; nevertheless, it is essential that the record affirmatively disclose a colloquy sufficient to meet the requirement of RCrP 3.170 (j). Williamson v. State, Fla.App.2d 1973, 273 So. 2d 784; Smith v. State, Fla.App.2d 1976, 326 So. 2d 236.
Accordingly, we remand the case to the trial judge with instruction to determine whether the appellant’s plea was voluntarily and understandingly tendered.
HOBSON, Acting C. J., and GRIMES, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Caristi v. State, 578 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…g the acceptance of the plea agreement and sentencing are valid grounds for reversal on a direct appeal of the judgment and sentence, e.g., Hyde v. State, 405 So. 2d 445 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), rev. denied, 412 So. 2d 466 (Fla.1982); Scheller v. State, 327 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), provided there is a showing of prejudice to the defendant pursuant to rule 3.172(i), and such objections are first timely presented to the trial court by way of a motion to withdraw plea. See Robinson v. State, 373 So. 2d 898, 90…
-
Hall v. State, 929 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…267, 271 (Fla.1975). In the present case, neither the second nor the third element are satisfied. Before a guilty plea can be accepted, there must be an “affirmative showing that it was entered intelligently and voluntarily.” See Scheller v. State, 327 So. 2d 876, 877 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). The defendant must be “sufficiently informed” so that he or she understands the consequences of the plea. See Altamirano v. State, 817 So. 2d 1029, 1032 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); see also Kadar v. State, 370 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 4th…
Authorities Cited
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1969)
- Williams v. State, 316 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1975)
- Williamson v. State, 273 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- Smith v. State, 326 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)