CRYSTAL PURCELL
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA

Fla. 5th DCA | 2019-06-07
No. 17-2901
Blechman, J., Wallis, J., Edwards, J., Harris, J.
273 So. 3d 1150 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2019)

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.


Holding

A defendant is entitled to withdraw a no contest plea prior to sentencing as a matter of right when good cause is shown, and ignorance of a collateral consequence of the plea constitutes good cause even though failure to inform of that consequence does not render the plea involuntary.


Headnotes

[1] A defendant is entitled to withdraw a no contest plea prior to sentencing as a matter of right when good cause is shown, and ignorance of a collateral consequence of the…

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 intelligence

Key Quotes

“Failure to inform [a defendant] of [a] collateral consequence may not have rendered the plea involuntary, but . . . ignorance of it does meet the 'good cause' test for a pre-sentence plea withdrawal.”

Court distinguishing between involuntariness and good cause for plea withdrawal

Facts & Procedural History

Crystal Purcell entered a no contest plea to two counts of child abuse. Prior to sentencing, she moved to withdraw her plea, alleging that her attorne…

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.


Opinion of the Court
Harris

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CRYSTAL PURCELL,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D17-2901

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed June 7, 2019

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Mark S. Blechman, Judge.

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and David M. Dixon, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Nora Hutchinson Hall, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Crystal Purcell appeals the order denying her pre-sentence motion to withdraw her no contest plea and the judgment and sentence that the trial court entered based on that plea. Because Purcell established good cause to withdraw the plea, we reverse.

Id.

However, "[w]hen a defendant files a motion to withdraw his plea prior to sentencing, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(f), he is entitled to withdraw his plea as a matter of right when good cause is shown." Johnson v. State, 947 So. 2d 1208, 1210 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). "Failure to inform [a defendant] of [a] collateral consequence may not have rendered the plea involuntary, but . . . ignorance of it does meet the 'good cause' test for a pre-sentence plea withdrawal." Id. Thus, while failing to inform Purcell of the collateral consequence of the termination of her parental rights may not have rendered her plea involuntary, her ignorance of the consequence does establish good cause.

WALLIS, EDWARDS and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
2 The State charged Purcell with two counts of child abuse, pursuant to section 827.03(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2015). She entered a no contest plea to these charges. Prior to sentencing, Purcell moved to withdraw her plea, alleging good cause because her attorney failed to inform her of the negative consequences a plea would have in the corresponding dependency case. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion. "Failure to inform a defendant of a collateral consequence of a plea cannot render a plea involuntary." Brown v. State, 943 So. 2d 899, 901 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (citing State v. Partlow, 840 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 2003)). This Court has previously held that the potential for the termination of parental rights is a collateral consequence to a plea. Slater v. State, 880 So. 2d 802, 804 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). This Court explained: Termination of parental rights is not a direct or immediate consequence of such pleas and is not a punishment. It is not automatic, but instead entails the discretion of the Department of Children and Families. Further, termination of parental rights has no bearing on the range of punishment a sentencing court may impose.
3 REVERSED and REMANDED.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw