Caraballo v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Caraballo v. State

145 So. 3d 192, 2014 WL 3935716, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 12443

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 13, 2014

DocketNo. 3D13-1704

StatusPublished

This text of 145 So. 3d 192 (Caraballo 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

Caraballo v. State, 145 So. 3d 192, 2014 WL 3935716, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 12443 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Hector Caraballo appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to void his plea in case number F02-12509C. Although the State has filed its Answer Brief maintaining its position that the record was sufficient to support the trial court’s denial of Caraballo’s motion to void the plea, the State does not object to remanding the case for an evidentiary hearing so that the trial court can reconsider the issue.

Caraballo claims in his Initial Brief that the court translator did not properly translate the plea agreement. However, for practical considerations as outlined in the State’s motion to expedite, we reverse and remand the case for an evidentiary hearing so Caraballo’s claim that the court translator erroneously interpreted the plea agreement and thus misadvised him regarding the nature of the plea agreement and/or sentence can be considered.

Reversed and remanded with instructions.

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

PER CURIAM.

Hector Caraballo appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to void his plea in case number F02-12509C. Although the State has filed its Answer Brief maintaining its position that the record was sufficient to support the trial court’s denial of Caraballo’s motion to void the plea, the State does not object to remanding the case for an evidentiary hearing so that the trial court can reconsider the issue.

Caraballo claims in his Initial Brief that the court translator did not properly translate the plea agreement. However, for practical considerations as outlined in the State’s motion to expedite, we reverse and remand the case for an evidentiary hearing so Caraballo’s claim that the court translator erroneously interpreted the plea agreement and thus misadvised him regarding the nature of the plea agreement and/or sentence can be considered.

Reversed and remanded with instructions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 So. 3d 192, 2014 WL 3935716, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 12443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caraballo-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.