HENRY ADAMS, 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.
Henry Adams appealed the denial of his motion to withdraw guilty pleas for breaking and entering and larceny, claiming the pleas were coerced by a deputy sheriff's promises and threats. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's denial, finding no abuse of discretion.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the guilty pleas. The burden of proving an abuse of discretion rests on the appellant, and Adams failed to meet this burden given the trial court's credibility determinations and the admissions made in Adams's own testimony.
“This court has consistently held that the granting or denying of a motion of this character is discretionary with the trial court and that the burden of proving an abuse of such discretion is upon the appellant.”
Establishes the legal standard for appellate review of motions to withdraw guilty pleas—discretion rests with the trial court and the appellant must prove abuse of that discretion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAdams pleaded guilty to breaking and entering and larceny on two separate occasions and was sentenced to five years of hard labor on each count to run…
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 Withdrawal Of Guilty Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
HOBSON, Justice.
Appellant was informed against for breaking and entering and for larceny on two separate occasions. On pleas of guilty, he was sentenced to five years of hard labor in each case, the sentences to run concurrently. After judgment and sentence, he filed a motion to withdraw the pleas of guilty and enter pleas of not guilty in both cases, on the primary ground that the previous pleas had been obtained from him by virtue of certain promises and threats made by one Levy Gatlin, a deputy sheriff of Polk County. The court denied the motion, after hearing, and this is the order appealed from.
The only question involved is whether or not the trial judge abused his discretion in denying the appellant’s motion to withdraw his pleas of guilty.
At the hearing on the motion, appellant testified that Gatlin had made his promises and threats on or about March 24, 1955, and that the only time Gatlin visited him in jail was on this date. He further testified that Gatlin promised him a light sentence or probation if he would plead guilty, and that if he did not plead guilty Gatlin would see that the welfare check received by his wife for the support of their children would be discontinued. Gatlin coached him about the robberies, he said, and told him how to testify.
Gatlin took the stand and testified that he talked to appellant only once, which was some time in February, 1955, and that appellant refused to tell him anything about the robberies'but said that he would not talk to anyone .other than his lawyer. Gat-lin denied having made promises or threats to appellant. Other evidence presented by the State tended to corroborate Gatlin’s story and refute appellant’s.
Perhaps the most significant point herein is that the latest date at which the alleged Gatlin interview could have occurred, according to appellant’s testimony, was March 25th. Appellant was not arraigned, however, until March 28th, at which time he pleaded not guilty. 1 He did not plead guilty until April 4, 1955. Appellant had been represented by counsel, but discharged him, apparently,, on March 26th. The attorney was re-employed after appellant had been convicted and sentenced, in time to present the motion to change his plea.
This court has consistently held that the granting or denying of a motion of this character is discretionary with the trial court and that the burden of proving an abuse of such discretion is upon the appellant. La Barbera v. State, Fla., 63 So. 2d 654; Sinclair v. State, 133 Fla. 77, 182 So. 637; Collins v. State, Fla., 83 So. 2d 6. Since the matter of credibility was in the hands of the trial court, and in the light of the admissions made by appellant in his own testimony, it does not appear that the burden has been sustained in this case.
Affirmed.
DREW, C. J., and TERRELL and THORNAL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Porter v. State, 564 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 1990)…Likewise, we find no error in the trial judge’s denial of Porter’s motion to withdraw his pleas. In Lopez, the Court said: Allowing the withdrawal of a guilty plea is within a trial court’s discretion; it is not a matter of right. Adams v. State, 83 So. 2d 273 (Fla.1955); Adler v. State, 382 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). The burden of proving a trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow withdrawal of a guilty plea is on the defendant. Mikenas; Adams. After imposition of sentence, that burden…
-
Lopez v. State, 536 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 1988)…did not understand the terms and consequences of his plea and that his attorney pressured him into entering the guilty plea. Allowing the withdrawal of a guilty plea is within a trial court’s discretion; it is not a matter of right. Adams v. State, 83 So. 2d 273 (Fla.1955); Adler v. State, 382 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). The burden of proving a trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow withdrawal of a guilty plea is on the defendant. Mike-nas; Adams. After imposition of sentence, that burde…
-
Deidre Michelle Hunt v. State, 613 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 1992)…of the trial court whether to allow the withdrawal of a guilty plea. Porter v. State, 564 So. 2d 1060, 1063 (Fla.1990), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 111 S.Ct. 1024, 112 L.Ed.2d 1106 (1991); Lopez v. State, 536 So. 2d 226, 229 (Fla.1988); Adams v. State, 83 So. 2d 273 (Fla.1955). Hunt has failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion in this regard. It is apparent from the record that no good cause was demonstrated to the trial court sufficient to warrant the withdrawal of Hunt’s plea prior to imposition of senten…
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
- La Barbera v. State, 63 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1953)
- Sinclair v. State, 133 Fla. 77 (Fla. 1938)
- Collins v. State, 83 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1955)