Huot v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Huot v. State

516 So. 2d 1140, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 87, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11642, 1987 WL 3029

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 23, 1987

DocketNo. 87-0821

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 516 So. 2d 1140 (Huot 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

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

Pincite

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]*1141denial 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