Saliga v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Saliga v. State

632 So. 2d 715, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 1814, 1994 WL 66898

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 4, 1994

DocketNo. 92-01460

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 632 So. 2d 715 (Saliga 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

Saliga v. State, 632 So. 2d 715, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 1814, 1994 WL 66898 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

FULMER, Judge.

Defendant appeals the denial of his motions to replace his attorney and to withdraw his guilty pleas. We find no error regarding the first issue and, accordingly, affirm that ruling.

As to the denial of defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, we reverse. The transcript of the plea hearing reveals that at no time was Defendant informed that any of the charges against him could result in a minimum mandatory sentence. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(e)(1) requires that, before accepting a guilty plea, the court “shall determine that [the defendant] understands ... the mandatory minimum penalty provided by law, if any.” This omission is a valid ground for allowing withdrawal of a guilty plea. Colon v. State, 619 So.2d 34 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand the case to allow Defendant to withdraw his guilty pleas for all charges on which a mandatory minimum sentence was in fact imposed.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and BLUE, J., concur.

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

FULMER, Judge.

Defendant appeals the denial of his motions to replace his attorney and to withdraw his guilty pleas. We find no error regarding the first issue and, accordingly, affirm that ruling.

As to the denial of defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, we reverse. The transcript of the plea hearing reveals that at no time was Defendant informed that any of the charges against him could result in a minimum mandatory sentence. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(e)(1) requires that, before accepting a guilty plea, the court “shall determine that [the defendant] understands ... the mandatory minimum penalty provided by law, if any.” This omission is a valid ground for allowing withdrawal of a guilty plea. Colon v. State, 619 So.2d 34 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand the case to allow Defendant to withdraw his guilty pleas for all charges on which a mandatory minimum sentence was in fact imposed.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and BLUE, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

632 So. 2d 715, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 1814, 1994 WL 66898, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saliga-v-state-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack