Delahoz v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Delahoz v. State

748 So. 2d 288, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 10838, 1998 WL 552832

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 26, 1998

DocketNo. 97-2682

StatusPublished

This text of 748 So. 2d 288 (Delahoz 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

Delahoz v. State, 748 So. 2d 288, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 10838, 1998 WL 552832 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm Appellant’s conviction and sentence. The trial court did not err in refusing to allow Appellant to withdraw his guilty plea. Appellant argues that he was misled by the court and by his attorney that he would receive only a ten to fifteen year sentence. The trial court found that no promises were made to Appellant and that no ten or fifteen year offer was ever made. The judge specifically recalled explaining Appellant’s options to him, accepting Appellant’s plea “only after I was absolutely positive that you knew exactly what you were doing and you were doing it willingly, knowingly, freely, and voluntarily and that you were totally capable of understanding exactly what you were doing at the time.”

The trial court has discretion to resolve issues of fact as to whether a plea was induced by misinformation. See Joyner v. State, 583 So.2d 726, 728 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (‘We cannot conclude that one seeking relief on this allegation alone is entitled, per se, to prevail nor that the trial court lacks discretion to resolve these issues against petitioner.”). We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s refusal to allow Appellant to withdraw his plea. We also affirm as to all other issues raised by Appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm Appellant’s conviction and sentence. The trial court did not err in refusing to allow Appellant to withdraw his guilty plea. Appellant argues that he was misled by the court and by his attorney that he would receive only a ten to fifteen year sentence. The trial court found that no promises were made to Appellant and that no ten or fifteen year offer was ever made. The judge specifically recalled explaining Appellant’s options to him, accepting Appellant’s plea “only after I was absolutely positive that you knew exactly what you were doing and you were doing it willingly, knowingly, freely, and voluntarily and that you were totally capable of understanding exactly what you were doing at the time.”

The trial court has discretion to resolve issues of fact as to whether a plea was induced by misinformation. See Joyner v. State, 583 So.2d 726, 728 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (‘We cannot conclude that one seeking relief on this allegation alone is entitled, per se, to prevail nor that the trial court lacks discretion to resolve these issues against petitioner.”). We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s refusal to allow Appellant to withdraw his plea. We also affirm as to all other issues raised by Appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

748 So. 2d 288, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 10838, 1998 WL 552832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/delahoz-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack