Murphy v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Murphy v. State

868 So. 2d 585, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 2287, 2004 WL 351779

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 25, 2004

DocketNo. 2D03-1580

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 868 So. 2d 585 (Murphy 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

Murphy v. State, 868 So. 2d 585, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 2287, 2004 WL 351779 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

KELLY, Judge.

In this appeal filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Clay Murphy challenges his conviction and sentence for possession of cocaine with the intent to sell. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Murphy’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170.

Rule 3.170(i) allows a defendant to challenge the entry of his plea within thirty days after sentencing based on the reasons set forth in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b)(2)(A). Murphy alleged that he entered his plea involuntarily, which is a ground specified in rule 9.140(b)(2)(A)(ii)(c), because he was fearful of the consequences if he proceeded to trial, he had no experience in the court system, and he did not know that he would lose his employment as a result of entering a plea.

At the hearing on his motion, Murphy stated that he thought that by entering a plea and completing his probation he would be able to keep his job. A trial court is only required to ensure that a defendant is aware of the direct consequences of his plea, those having a definite, immediate, and automatic effect on the defendant’s punishment. State v. Partlow, 840 So.2d 1040, 1042 (Fla.2003); Watrous v. State, 793 So.2d 6, 9 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). The trial court correctly concluded that the loss of employment was a collateral consequence of Murphy’s plea. A claim that a defendant was not informed of a collateral consequence of entering a plea is insufficient to render a plea involuntary and does not provide a basis to withdraw a plea. Watrous, 793 So.2d at 10.

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of Murphy’s motion to withdraw his plea.

WHATLEY and CANADY, JJ., Concur.

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

KELLY, Judge.

In this appeal filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Clay Murphy challenges his conviction and sentence for possession of cocaine with the intent to sell. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Murphy’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170.

Rule 3.170(i) allows a defendant to challenge the entry of his plea within thirty days after sentencing based on the reasons set forth in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b)(2)(A). Murphy alleged that he entered his plea involuntarily, which is a ground specified in rule 9.140(b)(2)(A)(ii)(c), because he was fearful of the consequences if he proceeded to trial, he had no experience in the court system, and he did not know that he would lose his employment as a result of entering a plea.

At the hearing on his motion, Murphy stated that he thought that by entering a plea and completing his probation he would be able to keep his job. A trial court is only required to ensure that a defendant is aware of the direct consequences of his plea, those having a definite, immediate, and automatic effect on the defendant’s punishment. State v. Partlow, 840 So.2d 1040, 1042 (Fla.2003); Watrous v. State, 793 So.2d 6, 9 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). The trial court correctly concluded that the loss of employment was a collateral consequence of Murphy’s plea. A claim that a defendant was not informed of a collateral consequence of entering a plea is insufficient to render a plea involuntary and does not provide a basis to withdraw a plea. Watrous, 793 So.2d at 10.

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of Murphy’s motion to withdraw his plea.

WHATLEY and CANADY, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

868 So. 2d 585, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 2287, 2004 WL 351779, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack