Ciccarelli v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ciccarelli v. State

635 So. 2d 149, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3498, 1994 WL 128061

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 15, 1994

DocketNo. 92-00458

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 635 So. 2d 149 (Ciccarelli 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

Ciccarelli v. State, 635 So. 2d 149, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3498, 1994 WL 128061 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Michael James Ciccarelli appeals from convictions and habitual offender sentences imposed for possession of cocaine and purchasing cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school. We agree with his contention that his open plea of nolo contendere was not knowing and intelligent because he did not, before entering his plea, receive notice that the state intended to seek an enhanced sentence under the habitual offender statute.¹ Accordingly, Cic-earelli was unaware of the possibility and reasonable consequences of habitualization. See Ashley v. State, 614 So.2d 486 (Fla.1993); Bell v. State, 624 So.2d 821 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).

We reverse and remand this case to the trial court to allow the appellant to withdraw his plea and thereafter to enter a new plea to the charges or to proceed to trial.

DANAHY, AC.J., and CAMPBELL and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Michael James Ciccarelli appeals from convictions and habitual offender sentences imposed for possession of cocaine and purchasing cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school. We agree with his contention that his open plea of nolo contendere was not knowing and intelligent because he did not, before entering his plea, receive notice that the state intended to seek an enhanced sentence under the habitual offender statute.¹ Accordingly, Cic-earelli was unaware of the possibility and reasonable consequences of habitualization. See Ashley v. State, 614 So.2d 486 (Fla.1993); Bell v. State, 624 So.2d 821 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).

We reverse and remand this case to the trial court to allow the appellant to withdraw his plea and thereafter to enter a new plea to the charges or to proceed to trial.

DANAHY, AC.J., and CAMPBELL and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

635 So. 2d 149, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3498, 1994 WL 128061, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ciccarelli-v-state-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack