Austin v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Austin v. State

696 So. 2d 1196, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 5580, 1997 WL 266631

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 21, 1997

DocketNo. 96-03090

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 696 So. 2d 1196 (Austin 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

Austin v. State, 696 So. 2d 1196, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 5580, 1997 WL 266631 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.

In this Anders appeal, appellant challenges his grand theft conviction, arguing that his plea was involuntary. This court, however, is precluded from considering appellant’s direct appeal because he failed to reserve his right to appeal when he entered his guilty plea. § 924.06(3), Fla.Stat. (1995); Norman v. State, 634 So.2d 212 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Appellant’s remedy, if any, is to move to withdraw his plea in the trial court.

In any event, there is no merit to appellant’s argument that his plea was involuntary. Appellant had originally been charged with first degree carjacking, but subsequently entered a negotiated plea to third degree grand theft in return for a sentence of 26.25 months. A review of the [1197]*1197plea hearing reveals that the plea colloquy was complete. The voluntariness of appellant’s plea was clearly established. Appellant was pleading to at least two cases, one of which was a burglary arising out of his entering a residence in an attempt to hide. Appellant’s questions regarding the offense of burglary related to that separate offense, not the instant case. His questions concerned his disagreement with the elements of the offense of burglary, not the fact that his actions fell within those elements. There is no merit to appellant’s argument here.

Accordingly, the case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

PATTERSON and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

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

CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.

In this Anders appeal, appellant challenges his grand theft conviction, arguing that his plea was involuntary. This court, however, is precluded from considering appellant’s direct appeal because he failed to reserve his right to appeal when he entered his guilty plea. § 924.06(3), Fla.Stat. (1995); Norman v. State, 634 So.2d 212 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Appellant’s remedy, if any, is to move to withdraw his plea in the trial court.

In any event, there is no merit to appellant’s argument that his plea was involuntary. Appellant had originally been charged with first degree carjacking, but subsequently entered a negotiated plea to third degree grand theft in return for a sentence of 26.25 months. A review of the [1197]*1197plea hearing reveals that the plea colloquy was complete. The voluntariness of appellant’s plea was clearly established. Appellant was pleading to at least two cases, one of which was a burglary arising out of his entering a residence in an attempt to hide. Appellant’s questions regarding the offense of burglary related to that separate offense, not the instant case. His questions concerned his disagreement with the elements of the offense of burglary, not the fact that his actions fell within those elements. There is no merit to appellant’s argument here.

Accordingly, the case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

PATTERSON and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

696 So. 2d 1196, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 5580, 1997 WL 266631, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/austin-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack