RAYMOND BRITT, 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.
Appellant Britt was convicted and sentenced to 15 years with probation, then violated probation and received 5 years in prison. He sought to withdraw his guilty pleas, claiming he was misled about sentencing exposure. The court reversed because all parties, including the trial judge, mistakenly believed the maximum sentence was 15 years when Florida law limited it to 5 years.
The court held that a person induced to give up his right to trial by a misapprehension of circumstances surrounding his plea is entitled to vacation of the judgment and sentence resulting from that plea. The reversal was warranted because there was a general misapprehension about sentencing exposure that was not attributable to the defendant's own error.
[1] A guilty plea is involuntary and subject to vacation when induced by a misapprehension of circumstances surrounding the plea.
[2] A defendant is entitled to withdraw a guilty plea if the court and counsel misled the defendant regarding the maximum possible sentence.
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“A person induced to give up his right to a trial by a misapprehension of circumstances surrounding his plea is entitled to vacation of any judgment and sentence resulting from such a plea.”
Establishes the legal standard for withdrawal of guilty pleas based on mutual misapprehension about sentencing consequences.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBritt pleaded guilty to breaking and entering a building with intent to commit a misdemeanor and was sentenced to 15 years suspended with 15 years pro…
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 Involuntary Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Judge.
Appellant Raymond Britt entered a plea of guilty to a charge of breaking and entering a building other than a dwelling house with intent to commit a misdemeanor. The trial court adjudicated him guilty and sentenced him to a term of fifteen years in prison with credit for jail time. The court immediately suspended said sentence and placed appellant on fifteen years probation.
Subsequently, appellant’s probation supervisor filed an affidavit alleging that appellant had violated the terms of his probation. Appellant entered a guilty plea to these violations and the trial court sentenced him to five years in prison followed by probation for the balance of the original fifteen year sentence.
Thereafter, appellant moved to withdraw his pleas of guilty to the original charge and to the probation violation charge and to vacate the sentence imposed upon him. This motion we deem to have been filed pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. After hearing, the trial court denied the motion and appellant appeals.
Appellant argues the trial judge should have granted his motion to set aside his pleas because he did not enter into those pleas voluntarily because both his own court-appointed counsel and the court led him to believe the maximum sentence was fifteen rather than five years.
It is clear from the facts of this case that there was a general misapprehension among all the parties involved as to the length of the time which appellant could be imprisoned. Even the trial court believed that appellant could receive a fifteen year sentence when, in fact, under Sections 810.-05 and 775.082(5), Florida Statutes (1973), appellant could only receive a five-year sentence.
A person induced to give up his right to a trial by a misapprehension of circumstances surrounding his plea is entitled to vacation of any judgment and sentence resulting from such a plea. Bartz v. State, 221 So. 2d 7 (Fla.2d DCA 1969).
In view hereof, the order appealed from should be, and is hereby, reversed; and this cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
OTT, Acting C. J., and McNULTY, JOSEPH P. (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Forbert v. State, 437 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 1983)…xchange is legal, when in fact the sentence is not legal, the defendant should be given the opportunity to withdraw the plea when later challenging the legality of the sentence. Cleveland v. State, 394 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Britt v. State, 352 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). In Cleveland and Britt the defendants agreed to serve sentences exceeding the maximum sentences authorized for the crimes to which they pled guilty. Reasoning that the defendants had negotiated with a misunderstanding of the appr…
-
Nova v. State, 439 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…nvoluntary and the attendant conviction must be set aside. Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971); Griffith v. Wyrick, 527 F. 2d 109 (8th Cir.1975); Davy v. State, 356 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Britt v. State, 352 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). IV Finally, we consider whether Nova’s motion could have been properly denied by the trial court because Nova knew or should have known as of March 1976 of the ground now asserted. As we have already stated, n. 3 supra, so long…
-
Bashlor v. State, 586 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…nied, 383 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980) and Smith v. State, 345 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), see also Madrigal v. State, 545 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Clem v. State, 462 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Here, unlike the appellant in Britt v. State, 352 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), appellant and the court below were under no misapprehension as to the length of time appellant could be imprisoned on the original charges against him. Appellant’s reliance on Forbert v. State, 437 So. 2d 1079 (Fla.1983) is misp…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bartz v. State, 221 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)