Blake v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Blake v. State

171 So. 2d 207

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 26, 1965

DocketNo. 64-573

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 171 So. 2d 207 (Blake 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

Blake v. State, 171 So. 2d 207 (Fla. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks review of an order denying his motion under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A., Chapter 924, Appendix, to obtain collateral relief against his conviction and sentence for the crime of aggravated assault.

After having heard oral argument, and reviewed the motion and accompanying record, we find petitioner’s allegation that he plead guilty to the charge of aggravated assault while under the mistaken belief that his plea was directed to another unrelated offense only, is not conclusively refuted by the record. Since petitioner is presently serving sentence based on his conviction in the aggravated assault case and subsequent parole violation, it is our view that he should be afforded a hearing and an opportunity to present evidence in support of his allegation that he improvidently and in ignorance pleaded guilty to that charge. See State v. Weeks, Fla.1964, 166 So.2d 892; Dickens v. State, Fla.App.1964, 165 So.2d 811.

A plea of guilty should be voluntary and not made in ignorance or by virtue of inadvertence. Inasmuch as no attempt to withdraw the plea was made in the case-at bar, the record would not support an appeal endeavoring to raise the question o 1 improvident plea, LaRocca v. State, Fla.App.1963, 151 So.2d 64, and the issue is, therefore properly raised in this proceedings The petitioner’s other allegations have been carefully examined and found to be without merit.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks review of an order denying his motion under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A., Chapter 924, Appendix, to obtain collateral relief against his conviction and sentence for the crime of aggravated assault.

After having heard oral argument, and reviewed the motion and accompanying record, we find petitioner’s allegation that he plead guilty to the charge of aggravated assault while under the mistaken belief that his plea was directed to another unrelated offense only, is not conclusively refuted by the record. Since petitioner is presently serving sentence based on his conviction in the aggravated assault case and subsequent parole violation, it is our view that he should be afforded a hearing and an opportunity to present evidence in support of his allegation that he improvidently and in ignorance pleaded guilty to that charge. See State v. Weeks, Fla.1964, 166 So.2d 892; Dickens v. State, Fla.App.1964, 165 So.2d 811.

A plea of guilty should be voluntary and not made in ignorance or by virtue of inadvertence. Inasmuch as no attempt to withdraw the plea was made in the case-at bar, the record would not support an appeal endeavoring to raise the question o 1 improvident plea, LaRocca v. State, Fla.App.1963, 151 So.2d 64, and the issue is, therefore properly raised in this proceedings The petitioner’s other allegations have been carefully examined and found to be without merit.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 So. 2d 207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blake-v-state-fladistctapp-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack