ERNESTO CORDERO
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A defendant who moves to withdraw a guilty plea after sentencing bears the burden of proving that a manifest injustice has occurred.
[1] A defendant moving to withdraw a guilty plea after sentencing must prove that a manifest injustice has occurred, and the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceErnesto Cordero filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea after sentencing in a criminal case in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court.…
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 Burden Of Proof On Defendant cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed April 16, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-1795 Lower Tribunal No. F21-21053B ________________
Ernesto Cordero, Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida, Appellee.
An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, David Young, Judge.
Ernesto Cordero, in proper person.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Daniel Colmenares, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before MILLER, LOBREE, and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2 Affirmed. See Snodgrass v. State, 837 So. 2d 507, 508 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (“Where a motion to withdraw a plea occurs after sentencing, the appellant has the burden of proving that a manifest injustice has occurred.”) (emphasis in original) (quotation omitted); State v. Avila, 43 So. 3d 936, 937 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (holding the defendant carries the burden of proof to show “the colloquy did not inform him of the consequences of [his] plea”); Fletcher v. State, 890 So. 2d 1167, 1169 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (noting postconviction relief is proper where the plea colloquy conclusively refutes the claim); Maxwell v. State, 383 So. 3d 892, 895–96 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024) (“Pleas do not occur after disposition in a criminal case. . . . To say that a trial court took a plea from a defendant after disposition of a criminal case— regardless of whether adjudication has been withheld—makes no sense because, at that point, the defendant’s guilt as to the criminal charges in the case had already been formally determined.”) (emphasis in original).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Snodgrass v. State, 837 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Fletcher v. State, 890 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Anderson v. State, 383 So. 3d 892 (Fla. 1st DCA 2025)
- State v. Maykel Avila, 43 So. 3d 936 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)