Artigas v. State
| Decision Date | 14 November 1939 |
| Citation | 140 Fla. 671,192 So. 795 |
| Parties | ARTIGAS et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Jan. 18, 1940.
Error to Criminal Court, Hillsborough County; John R. Himes, Judge.
Henry Artigas and Joe Pardo were charged, by information, with conducting a lottery and possessing implements and devices necessary to conduct a lottery. To review an order denying their motion to withdraw pleas of guilty and to enter pleas of not guilty, Henry Artigas and Joe Pardo bring error.
Reversed and new trial awarded.
COUNSEL Whitaker Brothers and McArthur & Akerman, all of Tampa, for plaintiffs in error.
George Couper Gibbs, Atty. Gen., and Thomas J. Ellis, Asst. Atty Gen., for defendant in error.
On the 20th day of January, 1939, Henry Artigas, Joe Pardo, George B. Anderson and Sam State were informed against in the Criminal Court of Record of Hillsborough County, Florida, on two counts, one of which charged them with conducting a lottery contrary to law and in the second count they were charged with the possession of implements and devices necessary to conduct a lottery. On March 6, 1939, upon arraignment, the defendants entered pleas of not guilty, but at a subsequent date when a jury was being empanelled to try them, plaintiffs in error withdrew their pleas of not guilty and entered pleas of guilty, with the understanding that the pending charges against George B Anderson and Sam State be nolle prosequi, which was done on the motion of the State.
The trial court sentenced each of the defendants on March 13 1939, to pay a fine of $750 and to serve for a period of fifteen months in the State Prison at hard labor, and in default of the payment of said fine, they would be required to serve nine additional months in the State Prison under the first count of the information but were not sentenced under the second count, and on the 15th day of March the defendants filed their motion or petition to withdraw their pleas of guilty and be permitted or allowed to interpose pleas of not guilty, which motion was by the lower court overruled and denied. Plaintiffs in error sued out writ of error and have perfected their appeal to this Court and the order denying the motion to withdraw pleas of guilty and to enter pleas of not guilty is assigned and argued as reversible error.
The sworn motion or petition of defendants to withdraw the pleas of guilty and to enter pleas of not guilty to each count of the information recited that the pleas of guilty were entered through: (a) Fear in that they were informed that a certain State witness then in Court was prepared to testify and would testify to any facts necessary to secure a conviction of plaintiffs in error; (b) that a publicity crusade in Hillsborough County against gambling had so inflamed the minds of the people until it was impossible to obtain a fair trial; (c) the defendants were taken by surprise in this that at the time of the filing of the pleas of guilty the trial court had never prior thereto imposed a sentence of imprisonment for gambling and the defendants below, relying upon this record, entered the pleas with the impression or belief that the trial court would enter such a sentence as would permit or allow them to pay a fine rather than serve a term in prison; (d) that the defendants are ignorant and illiterate Latins and do not have an accurate knowledge of court procedure or of the English language and the pleas of guilty were obtained by fear, ignorance of court procedure and were of the opinion that they would be allowed to pay a fine when the pleas were filed and were told that the court had never imposed imprisonment for similar charges.
Mr. McArthur, of counsel for plaintiffs in error, filed an affidavit setting up a detailed statement of the facts from the date of entering the pleas of not guilty on the 6th day of March, 1939, the facts surrounding the beginning of the trial, conferences with the County Attorney, and the entry of the pleas of guilty and the sentence of the court entered on March 13, 1939, until the 15th day of March, 1939, when application was made to withdraw the pleas of guilty and after a sentence of imprisonment and fine had been entered by the trial court against the defendants.
The trial court likewise entered a lengthy order in which all the material facts connected with the filing of the pleas of not guilty, the withdrawal thereof and the entry of pleas of guilty and the quashing of the information on the motion of the State against Anderson and State were set out in meticulous detail. The court cited authorities upon which he based his ruling denying the motions to withdraw the pleas of guilty and proceed to trial. It is not necessary to set out in extensio the motion, affidavits and order of the court in disposing of the case at bar.
The law controlling the case at bar is well settled in Florida. The rule or doctrine previously enunciated by this Court is that a plea of guilty when entered should be entirely voluntary by one competent to know the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reddick v. State, 6551
...of undue motivation, among which are Misapprehension and Coercion. Canada v. State, 1940, 144 Fla. 633, 198 So. 220; Artigas v. State, 1940, 140 Fla. 671, 192 So. 795; Rubenstein v. State, Fla.1951, 50 So.2d 708; Asbey v. State, Fla.App.1958, 102 So.2d 407; Hill v. State, Fla.App.1959, 110 ......
-
State v. Braverman
...reveals that the courts lean toward a full trial on the issues. Eckles v. State, 132 Fla. 526, 180 So. 764 (1938); Artigas v. State, 140 Fla. 671, 192 So. 795 (1940); Hill v. State, 110 So.2d 464 (Fla.2nd D.C.A. 1959); Riddle v. State, supra; Morton v. State, supra. And, in light of the pro......
-
Rubenstein v. State
...State, 116 Fla. 3, 156 So. 282; Eckles v. State, 132 Fla. 526, 180 So. 764; Sinclari v. State, 133 Fla. 77, 182 So. 637; Artigas v. State, 140 Fla. 671, 192 So. 795; Wenrich v. State, 159 Fla. 492, 32 So.2d The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings. THOMAS, ADA......
-
Bartz v. State, 68--419
...of undue motivation, among which are Misapprehension and Coercion. Canada v. State, 1940, 144 Fla. 633, 198 So. 220; Artigas v. State, 1940, 140 Fla. 671, 192 So. 795; Rubenstein v. State, Fla. 1951, 50 So.2d 708; Asbey v. State, Fla.App.1958, 102 So.2d 407; Hill v. State, Fla.App.1959, 110......