Atilus v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Atilus v. State

346 So. 2d 594

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 24, 1977

DocketNo. 76-533

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 346 So. 2d 594 (Atilus v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Atilus v. State, 346 So. 2d 594 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals his conviction on five counts of issuing worthless checks. The judgment and sentence of the court was based upon defendant’s plea of guilty. On this appeal, defendant contends that his plea of guilty to three of the worthless check charges was not voluntary because his probation had just been revoked on a prior conviction. With regard to the question of voluntariness, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in accepting the guilty plea where the plea was not entered voluntarily and intelligently due to a language problem on his part. It is evident from a reading of the record, however, that the trial judge gave full consideration to this matter. Additionally, defendant argues that he might not have pled guilty had he not already been facing a prison term. This argument presumes that a defendant may create his own difficulty and then take advantage of that difficulty to secure a more favorable action in a subsequent violation of the law. We reject this reasoning and affirm the judgment and sentence.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals his conviction on five counts of issuing worthless checks. The judgment and sentence of the court was based upon defendant’s plea of guilty. On this appeal, defendant contends that his plea of guilty to three of the worthless check charges was not voluntary because his probation had just been revoked on a prior conviction. With regard to the question of voluntariness, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in accepting the guilty plea where the plea was not entered voluntarily and intelligently due to a language problem on his part. It is evident from a reading of the record, however, that the trial judge gave full consideration to this matter. Additionally, defendant argues that he might not have pled guilty had he not already been facing a prison term. This argument presumes that a defendant may create his own difficulty and then take advantage of that difficulty to secure a more favorable action in a subsequent violation of the law. We reject this reasoning and affirm the judgment and sentence.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

346 So. 2d 594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atilus-v-state-fladistctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack