S.A.W. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

S.A.W. v. State

206 So. 3d 123, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 17996

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 7, 2016

DocketCase No. 2D15-4905

StatusPublished

This text of 206 So. 3d 123 (S.A.W. 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

S.A.W. v. State, 206 So. 3d 123, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 17996 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

LaROSE, Judge.

S.A.W., a juvenile, pleaded guilty to burglary, in violation of section 810.02, Florida Statutes (2014), and grand theft, in violation of section 812.014, Florida Statutes (2014). The trial court withheld adjudication and placed S.A.W. on six months of probation. S.A.W. appeals the final adjudication and disposition. We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A)©. S.A.W. argues that the trial court erred by denying his dispositive motion to suppress DNA evidence and in failing to hold a plea colloquy or enter a written or oral disposition. We affirm, without further discussion, the trial court’s order denying the motion to suppress evidence.

The State concedes that the trial court did not hold a plea colloquy. See Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.080(a) (“Before accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the court shall determine that the plea is knowingly and voluntarily entered and that there is a factual basis for it.”). Thus, we must reverse and remand for the trial court to conduct the appropriate colloquy. See G.M.K. v. State, 312 So.2d 538, 538 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975) (holding that remand was appropriate when the record failed to reflect a determination by the trial court that the juvenile entered a voluntary plea with an understanding of the nature of the allegations).

Affirmed, in part, reversed, in part, and remanded.

BLACK and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.

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

LaROSE, Judge.

S.A.W., a juvenile, pleaded guilty to burglary, in violation of section 810.02, Florida Statutes (2014), and grand theft, in violation of section 812.014, Florida Statutes (2014). The trial court withheld adjudication and placed S.A.W. on six months of probation. S.A.W. appeals the final adjudication and disposition. We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A)©. S.A.W. argues that the trial court erred by denying his dispositive motion to suppress DNA evidence and in failing to hold a plea colloquy or enter a written or oral disposition. We affirm, without further discussion, the trial court’s order denying the motion to suppress evidence.

The State concedes that the trial court did not hold a plea colloquy. See Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.080(a) (“Before accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the court shall determine that the plea is knowingly and voluntarily entered and that there is a factual basis for it.”). Thus, we must reverse and remand for the trial court to conduct the appropriate colloquy. See G.M.K. v. State, 312 So.2d 538, 538 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975) (holding that remand was appropriate when the record failed to reflect a determination by the trial court that the juvenile entered a voluntary plea with an understanding of the nature of the allegations).

Affirmed, in part, reversed, in part, and remanded.

BLACK and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 So. 3d 123, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 17996, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saw-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack