Young v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Young v. State

327 So. 2d 127, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14670

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 18, 1976

DocketNo. 75-596

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 327 So. 2d 127 (Young 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

Young v. State, 327 So. 2d 127, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14670 (Fla. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The judgments and sentences are affirmed. We do not pass upon the contention that because the court did not advise appellant of the maximum sentence he could receive, his plea of nolo contendere was not voluntarily made with the full understanding of its significance. See Wade v. Wainwright, 5th Cir. 1969, 420 F.2d 898. A factual basis for the appellant’s plea was established. The trial judge conducted a colloquy sufficient to demonstrate a waiver of appellant’s right to trial by jury and other attendant rights and to convince the court that the appellant’s plea was voluntarily and intelligently entered. Notwithstanding the failure of the record to indicate the appellant was apprised of the maximum sentence for the crime he pled to, the record otherwise establishes the appellant understood the consequence of his plea. Since this is a direct appeal rather than an appeal from the denial of a motion for post-conviction relief, and there is no showing that appellant did not know the maximum sentence and no prejudice has been demonstrated, we do not need to reach the point raised by appellant. See Williams v. State, Fla.1975, 316 So.2d 267.

BOARDMAN, Acting C. J., and GRIMES and SCHEB, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The judgments and sentences are affirmed. We do not pass upon the contention that because the court did not advise appellant of the maximum sentence he could receive, his plea of nolo contendere was not voluntarily made with the full understanding of its significance. See Wade v. Wainwright, 5th Cir. 1969, 420 F.2d 898. A factual basis for the appellant’s plea was established. The trial judge conducted a colloquy sufficient to demonstrate a waiver of appellant’s right to trial by jury and other attendant rights and to convince the court that the appellant’s plea was voluntarily and intelligently entered. Notwithstanding the failure of the record to indicate the appellant was apprised of the maximum sentence for the crime he pled to, the record otherwise establishes the appellant understood the consequence of his plea. Since this is a direct appeal rather than an appeal from the denial of a motion for post-conviction relief, and there is no showing that appellant did not know the maximum sentence and no prejudice has been demonstrated, we do not need to reach the point raised by appellant. See Williams v. State, Fla.1975, 316 So.2d 267.

BOARDMAN, Acting C. J., and GRIMES and SCHEB, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

327 So. 2d 127, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14670, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-state-fladistctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack