Carroll v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Carroll v. State

801 So. 2d 144, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 16399, 2001 WL 1472639

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 21, 2001

DocketNo. 2D01-4025

StatusPublished

This text of 801 So. 2d 144 (Carroll 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

Carroll v. State, 801 So. 2d 144, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 16399, 2001 WL 1472639 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

THREADGILL, Acting Chief Judge.

Anthony Lee Carroll appeals the summary denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis. We affirm.

Carroll alleged in his petition that his pleas entered in three different cases in 1992 were involuntary. He claimed that neither his attorney nor the sentencing court assured that he understood the nature of the charges against him or the consequences of his pleas. He also alleged that a factual basis for the charges was not put on the record.

Carroll’s petition is vague and concluso-ry. He did not identify any prejudice that arose from the alleged deficiencies in the plea colloquy and he provided absolutely no reason why these deficiencies in his plea colloquy were unknown to him at the time he entered his pleas. The denial of his petition is affirmed because the allegations upon which his petition is based were or should have been known at the time he entered his pleas. See State v. Perry, 786 So.2d 554 (Fla.2001).

Affirmed.

GREEN and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

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