Huot v. State

516 So. 2d 1140, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 87, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11642, 1987 WL 3029
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 23, 1987·No. No. 87-0821·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

HERSEY, Chief Judge.

Andre Huot appeals his conviction of possession of an automobile with an altered vehicle identification number and grand theft. He also appeals the trial court’s [1141] denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

Various errors are suggested by appellant. We treat only one, as we find it dispositive. Huot entered a plea of guilty. There was no plea bargain. He was not advised of the possible penalties. Rule 3.172(c)(i), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, mandates that the defendant be advised of “[t]he nature of the charge to which the plea is offered, the mandatory minimum penalty provided by law, if any, and the maximum possible penalty provided by law....”

Failure to advise a defendant of a maximum possible sentence prevents the defendant from being properly apprised of the significance of his plea and is therefore error for which the defendant must be afforded the opportunity to withdraw a plea of guilty. See Green v. State, 406 So.2d 1148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), approved, 421 So.2d 508 (Fla.1982).

We therefore reverse and remand with directions to permit the appellant to withdraw his plea of guilty.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ANSTEAD and DELL, JJ., concur.

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

Huot v. State, 516 So. 2d 1140, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 87, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11642, 1987 WL 3029 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

516 So. 2d 1140 (Huot v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Horn v. State
57 So. 3d 984 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
Brown v. State
585 So. 2d 350 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Marriott v. State
582 So. 2d 728 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Garza v. State
519 So. 2d 727 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)