ARNALDO LUGO, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Arnaldo Lugo appeals the denial of his motion to vacate his guilty plea and fifteen-year sentence, arguing the plea was involuntary because he was unaware it was a habitual felony offender sentence. The court affirmed, finding that Lugo was fully aware of the nature of the sentence through the trial court's offer made in open court and his counsel's advice.
Lugo's plea was voluntary and not rendered invalid. Although the trial court failed to expressly state during the guilty plea colloquy that the sentence would be a habitual felony offender sentence, Lugo suffered no prejudice because the court had made this offer clear immediately prior to the colloquy, and his counsel had fully advised him of the sentence's nature before he accepted the offer.
[1] A guilty plea is not rendered involuntary when a defendant is aware of a habitual offender sentence, even if the trial court does not expressly state this during the plea…
[2] A defendant's awareness of a habitual offender sentence can be established by evidence that the offer was made in open court and accepted after consultation with counsel.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the defendant was fully aware that the fifteen-year sentence which the trial court offered to impose, upon the defendant's guilty plea, was to be a habitual felony offender sentence”
Establishes the court's factual finding that Lugo had actual knowledge of the sentence designation through the court's offer and his counsel's advice.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court made a fifteen-year habitual felony offender sentence offer to defendant Lugo and his defense counsel in open court. Lugo subsequently…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Guilty Plea Colloquy cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendant Arnaldo Lugo from a trial court order denying his motion to vacate judgment and sentence filed pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. The central point raised by the defendant on appeal is that his negotiated guilty plea in this cause was involuntary because the defendant was not personally aware that the fifteen-year sentence he received, pursuant to the plea agreement with the court, was a habitual offender sentence. We find no merit in this argument and affirm because it is clear from the testimony of the defendant’s former defense counsel in this cause that the defendant was fully aware that the fifteen-year sentence which the trial court offered to impose, upon the defendant’s guilty plea, was to be a habitual felony offender sentence.
The trial court made the fifteen-year habitual felony offender offer to the defendant and defense counsel in open court, which offer the defendant shortly thereafter accepted in a guilty plea colloquy conducted by the trial court. Although it is true that the trial court did not in this colloquy expressly state that the fifteen-year sentence to be imposed would be a habitual felony offender sentence, see Ashley v. State, 614 So. 2d 486 (Fla.1993), the defendant was in no way prejudiced by this omission as that advisement was, in effect, given by the trial court immediately prior to the colloquy when the court made the subject offer to the defendant and his counsel; when the defendant subsequently accepted this offer after consulting with his counsel and being fully advised by counsel that the sentence he would receive would be a fifteen-year habitual felony offender sentence, it is clear that, in context, the defendant was completely aware that the fifteen-year sentence he was to receive would be a habitual felony offender sentence. Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.172(i) (“[flailure to follow any of the procedures in this rule shall not render a plea void absent a showing of prejudice”); State v. Will, 645 So. 2d 91, 93 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Williams v. State, 316 So. 2d 267, 273-75 (Fla.1975).
We find no merit in the balance of the defendant’s arguments. The trial court order under review is, therefore, in all respects,
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 316 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1975)
- Ashley v. State, 614 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1993)
- State v. Will, 645 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)