JOE LOUIS HUMPHRIES, 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.
A trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a defendant's motion to withdraw a nolo contendere plea made before sentencing, though such pleas may be withdrawn for good cause shown at the trial court's discretion.
A trial court may, in its discretion, permit withdrawal of a nolo contendere plea for good cause shown at any time before sentencing.
[1] A trial court may, in its discretion, permit withdrawal of a nolo contendere plea for good cause shown at any time before sentencing, notwithstanding the absence of an ex…
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 intelligenceAppellant entered a nolo contendere plea pursuant to a plea bargaining agreement, a factual basis was established, and appellant understood the plea's…
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 Good Cause Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
BOYER, Chief Judge.
Appealing a judgment of guilt and resulting sentence, appellant urges that the trial court erred or abused its discretion in denying appellant’s motion to withdraw his plea of nolo contendere made prior to imposition of sentence. The State denies that the trial court so erred or abused its discretion and further claims that no Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure provides for the withdrawal of a plea of nolo contendere.
Our review of the record reveals that appellant’s plea of nolo contendere was incident to a plea bargaining agreement, that a factual basis for the plea was adduced, that appellant understood the effect of the plea and that the trial court neither erred nor abused its discretion in denying the subsequent motion to withdraw the plea. (See Qualls v. State, Fla.App. 4th 1975, 315 So. 2d 482) However, we do not agree with the State’s contention that a plea of nolo contendere is etched in granite and may not be withdrawn. Although this case does not involve a situation in which the trial judge failed to concur in a plea agreement within the contemplation of Rule 3.171(c) RCrP, that rule clearly contemplates situations in which a plea of nolo contendere may be withdrawn. Although Rule 3.170(f) refers only to a plea of guilty we are of the view that a trial court may, in its discretion, for good cause shown at anytime before sentencing, permit a plea of nolo contendere to be withdrawn.
AFFIRMED.
RAWLS and McCORD, JJ., concur.