Hammerstons v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hammerstons v. State

576 So. 2d 944, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 2616, 1991 WL 13576

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 29, 1991

DocketNo. 90-01077

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 576 So. 2d 944 (Hammerstons 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

Hammerstons v. State, 576 So. 2d 944, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 2616, 1991 WL 13576 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm defendant s conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and do not find erroneous the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to withdraw his nolo contendere plea.

The basis for the motion was that the victim had recanted her testimony. However, the record indicates that there were two witnesses whose testimony was not shown to have been recanted, that defendant did not testify, and that the evidence

fails to establish that the plea[] [was] not freely and voluntarily entered into by one competent to understand its consequences. It fails to establish that the plea[] [was] induced by fear, misapprehension, undue persuasion, promises, mistake, fraud or ignorance.

State v. Braverman, 348 So.2d 1183, 1187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). See also Ferguson v. Stone, 415 So.2d 98 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).

We strike the court costs and attorney’s fees without prejudice to the state to seek reimposition after proper notice and opportunity to be heard.

RYDER, A.C.J., LEHAN and FRANK, JJ., concur.

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