ALPHONSO WRIGHT, 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.
Wright was convicted by jury of assault charges and sentenced to fifty years. On appeal, he challenged the trial court's admission of a letter to the State's Attorney in which he confessed guilt, arguing it was an inadmissible plea bargain proposal. The court affirmed the conviction, finding the letter was not a valid plea bargain under the applicable rule.
The trial court did not err in admitting the letter. The letter was not a valid plea bargain proposal under Rule 3.171(b) because the defendant testified at trial that he would not plead guilty under any condition and was not guilty, thus he did not consent to any plea bargaining as required by the rule.
[1] A defendant's appellate argument that evidence was inadmissible as a plea bargain proposal is untimely if the objection was not raised on that specific ground in the tria…
[2] A letter from a defendant to the State's Attorney admitting guilt and seeking pardon is not considered a plea bargain proposal if the defendant testified at trial that he…
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“An examination of the record in the case sub judice demonstrates that defendant testified at trial to the effect that he would not plead guilty under any condition because he was not guilty.”
Establishes that defendant did not consent to plea bargaining, defeating his argument that the letter was an inadmissible plea bargain proposal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant Wright was informed against on several counts of assault with intent to commit murder and aggravated assault. He was tried by jury and found…
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.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant-appellant was informed against on several counts of assault with intent to commit murder and aggravated assault. He was tried by jury, found guilty on three counts of assault and sentenced to a total of fifty years.
Defendant raises six points on appeal, only one of which merits some discussion, to wit: whether the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a letter which was written'by the defendant and sent, to the State’s Attorney.
In the letter the defendant admits that he is guilty of the charges against him and asks for forgiveness and pardon.
Hereunder, we first note that counsel for the defendant made objection to the introduction thereof at the trial, but not on the grounds that the subject letter was a plea bargain proposal and inadmissable under RCrP 3.171(d) as defense counsel now contends on appeal. Since no specific objection on this ground was raised by the defendant in the trial, we find this point on appeal to be untimely. See Koran v. State, Fla.App.1968, 213 So. 2d 735.
Secondly, we cannot agree with appellant that the subject letter was in essence a classic offer for a plea bargain. RCrP 3.171(b) with regard to plea bargaining reads as follows:
“Rule 3.171 Plea Discussions and Agreements
* * * * * *
“(b) Defense counsel shall not conclude any plea bargaining on behalf of a defendant-client without his client’s full and complete consent thereto, being certain that any decision to plead guilty or nolo contendere is made by the defendant.
“Defense counsel shall advise defendant of all pertinent matters bearing on the choice of which plea to enter and the particulars attendant upon each plea, the likely results thereof as well as any possible alternative which may be open to him.”
* * * * *
An examination of the record in the case sub judice demonstrates that defendant tes tified at trial to the effect that he would not plead guilty under any condition because he was not guilty. Thus, we conclude that defendant did not consent to any plea bargaining pursuant to RCrP 3.171(b) and, therefore, we cannot accept the contention of appellant that the subject letter was in compliance with this rule.
Accordingly, the judgment herein appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Anderson v. State, 420 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 1982)…tate contends that only the prosecuting attorney can negotiate a plea. See 33 Fla.Stat. Ann. rule 3.171, comment, 246 (1975). . Stell v. State, 366 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Blake v. State, 332 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Wright v. State, 309 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 323 So. 2d 273 (Fla.1975). . Notwithstanding our holding of inadmissibility of the February and May statements, we disagree with Anderson’s contention that an insufficient basis for issuance of the indictment exists. Se…
-
State v. Rusti H. Osvath, 661 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…trial, whether the error be one of constitutional dimensions or not. Fuller v. State, 159 Fla. 200, 31 So. 2d 259 (1947); Fraterrigo v. State, 151 Fla. 634, 10 So. 2d 361 (1942); Robertson v. State, 94 Fla. 770, 114 So. 534 (1927); Wright v. State, 309 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert, denied, 323 So. 2d 273 (Fla.1975); O’Berry v. Wainwright, 300 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Hernandez v. State, 273 So. 2d 130, 133 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert, denied, 277 So. 2d 287 (Fla.1973); Koedatich v. State, 263 So. 2d 631 (F…
-
Porter v. State, 356 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…tacked as involuntary or otherwise inadmissible for the first time on appeal. A proper motion to suppress the confession or an objection thereto must be made at the trial level in order to preserve the question for appellate review. Wright v. State, 309 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Hernandez v. State, 273 So. 2d 130, 133 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); Blatch v. State, 216 So. 2d 261, 264 (Fla. 3d [*1272] DCA 1968); Simpson v. State, 211 So. 2d 862, 867 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); Gregory v. State, 181 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 1st DC…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mortimer Norman Koran v. State, 213 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)