McCoy v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McCoy v. State

613 So. 2d 612, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 2145, 1993 WL 46130

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 24, 1993

DocketNo. 91-3246

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 613 So. 2d 612 (McCoy 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

McCoy v. State, 613 So. 2d 612, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 2145, 1993 WL 46130 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his plea, tendered prior to sentencing. We agree and reverse.

In our view, appellant has shown good cause for withdrawal of his plea and has established that the trial court, in taking the plea, failed to cover all of the factors set forth in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(c). Although the trial judge did ask appellant whether he understood the change of plea form, he never personally determined whether appellant understood, inter alia, that he was giving up his right to trial by jury or his right to appeal all matters relating to the judgment. Furthermore, as appellant correctly contends, the trial judge never satisfied himself on the record that there was a factual basis for the plea. See Koenig v. State, 597 So.2d 256 (Fla.1992).

We find the other two issues raised by appellant to be without merit.

GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and GUNTHER and POLEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his plea, tendered prior to sentencing. We agree and reverse.

In our view, appellant has shown good cause for withdrawal of his plea and has established that the trial court, in taking the plea, failed to cover all of the factors set forth in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(c). Although the trial judge did ask appellant whether he understood the change of plea form, he never personally determined whether appellant understood, inter alia, that he was giving up his right to trial by jury or his right to appeal all matters relating to the judgment. Furthermore, as appellant correctly contends, the trial judge never satisfied himself on the record that there was a factual basis for the plea. See Koenig v. State, 597 So.2d 256 (Fla.1992).

We find the other two issues raised by appellant to be without merit.

GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and GUNTHER and POLEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

613 So. 2d 612, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 2145, 1993 WL 46130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccoy-v-state-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack