Fox v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Fox v. State

150 So. 228, 112 Fla. 104, 1933 Fla. LEXIS 2176

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedSeptember 25, 1933

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 150 So. 228 (Fox v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fox v. State, 150 So. 228, 112 Fla. 104, 1933 Fla. LEXIS 2176 (Fla. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

To an information charging a felony, the accused, apparently without understanding its import, offered a plea of nolo contendere, upon which a judgment of conviction and sentence to the State Prison was rendered. It does not appear that the accused was represented by counsel when the plea was filed. A motion to vacate the judgment and for leave to withdraw the plea of nolo contendere was supported by an affidavit of the accused that he had “never heard before of the word nolo contendere and did not know or understand its meaning, but was under the impression and believed that when he entered a plea that he was entering a plea of not guilty and that he did not *105 “intend to plead guilty,” but is innocent. The motion was denied. This was harmful error. Judgment reversed.

Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

To an information charging a felony, the accused, apparently without understanding its import, offered a plea of nolo contendere, upon which a judgment of conviction and sentence to the State Prison was rendered. It does not appear that the accused was represented by counsel when the plea was filed. A motion to vacate the judgment and for leave to withdraw the plea of nolo contendere was supported by an affidavit of the accused that he had “never heard before of the word nolo contendere and did not know or understand its meaning, but was under the impression and believed that when he entered a plea that he was entering a plea of not guilty and that he did not *105 “intend to plead guilty,” but is innocent. The motion was denied. This was harmful error. Judgment reversed.

Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 So. 228, 112 Fla. 104, 1933 Fla. LEXIS 2176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fox-v-state-fla-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack