JERRY DOUGLAS WOOD, 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.
Jerry Douglas Wood appealed his conviction for willfully failing to appear for trial, challenging the validity of his guilty plea and contending the information contained a technical statutory citation error. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, finding Wood understood he was pleading guilty to a felony and was not prejudiced by the technical defect.
The court affirmed Wood's conviction and sentence, holding that Wood and his attorney clearly understood the felony nature of the charge, the guilty plea was valid, the technical citation error in the information did not prejudice Wood, and the trial court properly denied additional time for mitigating evidence after Wood had two months to prepare.
[1] A defendant's guilty plea to a felony charge is valid when the defendant and their attorney understand the nature of the charge and the potential penalties.
[2] A defendant is not entitled to withdraw a guilty plea when the attorney has had ample opportunity to consult with the client and prepare mitigating evidence.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Wood and his attorney understood he was pleading guilty to a felony.”
Establishes that both Wood and counsel understood the nature and severity of the charge, defeating Wood's claim of confusion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWood was charged with willfully failing to appear for trial, a third-degree felony under Florida Statutes Section 843.15(1)(b). Initially pleading not…
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 Prejudicial Error Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
The State filed an information charging Wood with willfully failing to appear for trial on felony charges contrary to Section 843.15(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1975). Wood pled guilty and was sentenced to five years in prison less 128 days time served. Wood now appeals and contends that he was confused as to whether he pled to a felony or a misdemeanor; that he was not permitted to consult with his attorney concerning his request to withdraw his guilty plea; that he was not granted additional time to present mitigating evidence prior to sentencing; • and that the allegations of the information were insufficient to support his adjudication of guilt. 0
Initially, Wood pled not guilty but later changed his plea to guilty. When this was done the trial court clearly informed Wood and his attorney that Wood was charged with a felony known as failure to appear at a court proceeding which was a felony of the third degree and punishable by a maximum sentence of five years. Wood stated that he had given his attorney sufficient information to enter the plea and that he agreed to the plea. Wood and his attorney understood he was pleading guilty to a felony.
It is clear from the record that Wood and his attorney understood that Wood was pleading guilty to a felony and that the attorney was close to trifling with the court when she asked for a moment to speak to her client about withdrawing his guilty plea when she had already had two months to do this.
Wood and his attorney had approximately two months to prepare his presentation of mitigating circumstances prior to sentencing but apparently did nothing. At the sentencing proceeding, the court properly denied Wood’s request for additional time.
The information alleged a violation contrary to Section 843.15(l)(b) when it should have alleged Section 843.15(l)(a). This is of no consequence however. The information charged Wood with a felony. The court informed him he was charged with a felony punishable as a third degree felony. Wood agreed to enter a plea of guilty to the felony charge. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.140(d)(1) provides that an error in a citation shall not be a ground for reversal of a conviction based thereon if the error did not mislead the defendant to his prejudice. There has been no showing that Wood was misled or prejudiced. Tukes v. State, 346 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
The judgment and sentence are affirmed.
McCORD, C. J., and BOYER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jordan v. State, 728 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…rm.3 The violation of section 775.0823 was sufficiently shown. See B.H. v. State, 645 So. 2d 987, 996 (Fla.1994); Mosely v. State, 688 So. 2d 999, 999-1000 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Sanders v. State, 386 So. 2d 256, 257 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Wood v. State, 354 So. 2d 134, 135 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Tukes v. State, 346 So. 2d 1056, 1056 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); King v. State, 336 So. 2d 1200, 1202 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976).4 The fact that there was a nonprejudicial error in the statutory citation, rather than an entire absence of…
-
Vileta v. State, 454 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…it should have alleged section 810.02(2). However, defendant clearly was aware that he was being charged with armed burglary, a violation of section 810.02(2), and no prejudice resulted to defendant due to the incorrect citation. See Wood v. State, 354 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 361 So. 2d 836 (Fla.1978); King v. State, 336 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 345 So. 2d 424 (Fla.), cert. dismissed, 434 U.S. 802, 98 S.Ct. 30, 54 L.Ed.2d 60 (1977). . The guidelines were subsequently am…
-
Todd v. State, 648 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…the alleged defect in the specific offense to which he pled precludes his right to relief. See Hallman, 371 So. 2d at 482. Cf. Janes v. State, 585 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Leonetti v. State, 418 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Wood v. State, 354 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cert. denied, 361 So. 2d 836 (Fla.1978). Affirmed. .The pertinent provisions of the statute provide: (c) Any person who knowingly sells, manufactures, delivers, or brings into this state, or who is knowingly in actual or cons…
Authorities Cited
- Tukes v. State, 346 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)