THEOPHILUS WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
A juvenile defendant challenges his guilty plea to rape, alleging it was involuntary and coerced. The trial court denied his Rule 1.850 motion for post-conviction relief without a hearing. The appellate court reversed, finding the defendant's allegations of an involuntary plea warranted an evidentiary hearing.
The court held that Williams' allegations, which were not clearly refuted by the record, were sufficient to entitle him to an evidentiary hearing on whether his plea was knowingly, understandingly, and voluntarily given. The trial court erred in denying his motion without a hearing.
[1] A guilty plea must be knowingly, understandingly, and voluntarily given to be valid.
[2] The state bears the burden of demonstrating that a guilty plea was knowingly, understandingly, and voluntarily entered.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“A plea of guilty may be accepted only if knowingly, understandingly and voluntarily given. And the burden is on the state to have these essential elements clearly reflected in the record.”
Establishes the legal standard for accepting guilty pleas and allocates the burden of proof to the state.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams, a juvenile with only one ear, was charged with rape along with five other defendants. He was told by his counsel that he would plead to assa…
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 Motion To Vacate Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
The trial court denied appellant’s motion under Rule 1.850, F.R.Cr.Proc., 33 F.S.A., without a hearing. He appeals. We reverse and remand with instructions to conduct an evidentiary hearing.
Appellant, a juvenile, was charged with rape. He apparently plead guilty and was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Of the points presented only that urging that his guilty plea was involuntary and coerced has merit, and that only sufficient to require an evidentiary inquiry as concerns such allegations.
A plea of guilty may be accepted only if knowingly, understandingly and *681voluntarily given.1 And the burden is on the state to have these essential elements clearly reflected in the record.2
Appellants says he thought he was pleading guilty to a lesser included offense, assault with intent to commit rape. He says that on the day of his trial three of. the six defendants charged were told by their counsel that they would be put on probation and that the other three (including appellant) were told that they would enter pleas of assault with intent to commit rape.
Appellant only has one ear and alleges that he couldn’t hear much of the court proceedings because the prosecutor was standing on the side of his missing ear. He says that the record reflects his agreement to what was said — not because he heard and understood — because he thought all the time the proceedings were aimed at the lesser included offense.
There follows the critical portion of the colloquy:
“THE COURT: Have you discussed this with your parents ?
“MR. WILLIAMS: Not exactly.
“THE COURT: Have you discussed it with the parents?
“MR. FLEET: Yes, sir. Mrs. Williams.
“THE COURT: Are the parents here ? Mrs. Williams, has Mr. Fleet discussed this plea with you ?
“MRS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
“THE COURT: And do you understand the significance of it?
“MRS. WILLIAMS: Yes.
“THE COURT: You understand the significance of it?
“MRS. WILLIAMS: Yes.
“THE COURT: Now, Mr. Williams, do you understand the significance of this plea?
“MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
“THE COURT: Has it been explained to you by your counsel ?
“MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
“THE COURT: You understand by entering this plea you withdraw the right of trial by jury and the court has the complete discretion as to the sentence or the type of sentence that may be imposed?
“MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
“THE COURT: You understand that this sentence may include electrocution?
“MR. WILLIAMS: I don’t understand you too good.
"THE COURT: Well, do you understand, by entering this plea the State has recommended mercy?
“MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
“THE COURT: But it is still within the discretion of the Court whether to accept the plea or not accept the plea. I can accept the plea but I still have the discretion, you understand that?
“MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
“THE COURT: Well, having entered a plea of guilty to the offense of rape, the court will take and accept the plea and will make a finding of guilty, but the court will at this time withhold the adjudication as well as the sentence pending a complete preliminary investigation to be conducted by the proper officials of the State Parole Office * *
Other than above, the record does not show whether the defendant was arraigned or whether he ever had the charge read, *682presented or explained to him and whether he ever formally entered his plea to rape or to a lesser offense as contemplated in Chapter 909, F.S.1965, F.S.A.
Coupling all this together, we believe that appellant’s allegations which are not clearly refuted by the record3 are sufficient to entitle him to an evidentiary hearing as to whether his plea was knowingly, understandingly and voluntarily given.
Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.
REED and OWEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Clark v. State, 256 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)…was voluntarily made free from any threat, intimidation, coercion, promise or inducement of any kind. This court has recently noted the necessity for these elements to be clearly reflected in the record. (Theophilus) Williams v. State, Fla.App.1971, 245 So. 2d 680. Plainly stated, if and when it becomes apparent that either a guilty plea or plea of nolo contendere is to be entered by a defendant, before the plea is entered by the defendant or accepted by the court, the following should be done: The State shou…
-
Gullo v. State, 280 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…; it must be ‘without semblance’ of such influence [citing cases].” The court found that it could not be denied that Reddick was misled and was under a misapprehension, and a new trial was ordered. The court said in Williams v. State, Fla.App.1971, 245 So. 2d 680, that “A plea of guilty may be accepted only if knowingly, understandingly and voluntarily given.” It will be remembered that appellant, after pleading guilty, sought to withdraw his guilty plea and to enter a plea of nolo contendere (see State v.…
-
Jackson v. State, 442 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…to no relief.” After having considered the record and the specially permitted briefs and arguments of counsel, we find that an evidentiary hearing was necessary in this case. See Clark v. State, 256 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); Williams v. State, 245 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). This cause is therefore remanded for a hearing. Remanded.…
Authorities Cited
- Reddick v. State, 190 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Maxwood Clarence Brumley v. State, 224 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)
- Roberts v. State, 142 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Laws v. State, 235 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)