Haug v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Haug v. State

151 So. 3d 560, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 20205, 2014 WL 6997153

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 12, 2014

DocketNo. 1D14-2778

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 151 So. 3d 560 (Haug 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

Haug v. State, 151 So. 3d 560, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 20205, 2014 WL 6997153 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Paul Conrad Haug, challenges his convictions and sentences, arguing that the trial court failed to conduct a plea colloquy prior to adjudicating him guilty and sentencing him for violating his probation. “Due process requires a court accepting a guilty plea to carefully inquire into the defendant’s understanding of the plea, so that the record contains an affirmative showing that the plea was intelligent and voluntary.” Koenig v. State, 597 So.2d 256, 258 (Fla.1992). As properly conceded by the State, the record reflects that Appellant was never sworn in, he never admitted to any of the'alleged violations of probation, and he was never informed of the consequences of his admission. Because the legal requirements of Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.170(k) and 3.172(c) were not fulfilled, the trial court erred in entering the judgment and sentence for violation of probation. We, therefore, REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings.

THOMAS, ROWE, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Paul Conrad Haug, challenges his convictions and sentences, arguing that the trial court failed to conduct a plea colloquy prior to adjudicating him guilty and sentencing him for violating his probation. “Due process requires a court accepting a guilty plea to carefully inquire into the defendant’s understanding of the plea, so that the record contains an affirmative showing that the plea was intelligent and voluntary.” Koenig v. State, 597 So.2d 256, 258 (Fla.1992). As properly conceded by the State, the record reflects that Appellant was never sworn in, he never admitted to any of the'alleged violations of probation, and he was never informed of the consequences of his admission. Because the legal requirements of Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.170(k) and 3.172(c) were not fulfilled, the trial court erred in entering the judgment and sentence for violation of probation. We, therefore, REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings.

THOMAS, ROWE, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 So. 3d 560, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 20205, 2014 WL 6997153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haug-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack