EMILIO MARTINEZ, 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.
Martinez appeals his conviction following guilty pleas to multiple felonies, arguing his pleas were not freely and voluntarily given and that he lacked capacity to understand the proceedings. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the trial court colloquy demonstrated knowing and understanding entry of plea, and Martinez's acquiescence for over a year negated any claims of involuntariness or counsel incompetence.
The court affirmed the judgment and sentence, concluding that the colloquy between the trial judge and defendant established beyond question of doubt that the defendant entered his plea knowingly and understandingly. The defendant's acquiescence in his guilty plea for over one year after adjudication and sentencing rendered nugatory any contention of misrepresentation or incompetence.
[1] A guilty plea is considered knowing and understanding when the trial court's colloquy with the defendant demonstrates this fact.
[2] A defendant's acquiescence in a guilty plea and sentence for over one year renders nugatory contentions of misrepresentation or incompetence by counsel that allegedly res…
Previewing 2 of 2 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 colloquy in the trial court between the trial judge and the defendant indicates beyond any question of doubt that the defendant-appellant entered the plea knowingly and understandingly”
Establishes the court's primary basis for affirming—the trial record shows a proper colloquy demonstrating knowing and voluntary plea entry.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMartinez was charged with unlawful possession of a narcotic drug, possession of implements, three counts of breaking and entering, and three counts of…
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 Judgment And Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant-appellant was charged by information with (1) unlawful possession of a narcotic drug, (2) one count of possession of implements, (3) three counts of breaking and entering, and (4) three counts of grand larceny. Initially defendant pleaded not guilty to all the charges, but subsequently withdrew these pleas and pled guilty to all counts. The trial judge accepted the guilty pleas and thereupon sentenced the defendant to a total of 15 years in the state penitentiary. Thereafter, on June 21, 1973 petitioner-appellant filed a motion to vacate judgment and sentence pursuant to RCrP 3.850. As grounds therefor defendant contended that his guilty pleas -vere not freely and voluntarily given and further he had defects which prohibited him from understanding the proceedings. On September 27, 1973 the trial judge, finding that the petitioner was advised fully as to the consequence of his guilty plea, denied the motion to vacate. Thereupon, defendant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with this court which on February 27, 1974 ordered that the petition be treated as a notice of appeal from the judgment and sentence complained of.
After a careful examination of the record on appeal, we conclude that the colloquy in the trial court between the trial judge and the defendant indicates beyond any question of doubt that the defendant-appellant entered the plea knowingly and understandingly. Cf. Garcia v. State, Fla. App.1969, 228 So. 2d 300. Further, defendant’s plea of guilty and his acquies-cense therein for over one year after being adjudicated guilty and sentenced renders nugatory any contention of misrepresentation or incompetence on the part of defendant’s court appointed counsel resulting in an involuntary or misunderstood guilty plea. See O’Malley v. Wainwright, Fla.App.1970, 237 So. 2d 813 at 816.
For the reasons cited hereinabove, the judgment and sentence herein appealed are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Garcia v. State, 228 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- O'Malley v. Louie L. Wainwright, 237 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)