Boles v. State, 5D02-1101.
Decision Date | 11 October 2002 |
Docket Number | No. 5D02-1101.,5D02-1101. |
Citation | 827 So.2d 1073 |
Parties | Willie BOLES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Scott Ragan, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Lori N. Hagan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
Boles appeals an order which denied his motion to withdraw no contest pleas. Boles was sentenced as an habitual offender on three separate cases as follows: 10 years on each count concurrent in case number CR00-5488, 10 years on each count concurrent in case number CR 00-16647, and five years probation on each count consecutive in case number CR00-16648. The court ran the sentences in each case consecutively "for a total of 20 years ... followed by 10 years probation."
Boles argues he was never informed of the potential maximum sentence and mistakenly thought that the maximum sentence he could receive was ten years.
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(c)(1) requires the trial judge to personally address the defendant and determine that he or she understands "the nature of the charge to which the plea is offered, the mandatory minimum penalty provided by law, if any, and the maximum possible penalty provided by law." Contrary to Boles' assertion that "neither the State nor the judge ever informed" him of the maximum sentence, the record demonstrates that the prosecutor explained the potential maximum sentence.
At the plea hearing, the following exchange occurred:
Accordingly, Boles' claim that neither the state nor the judge informed him of the maximum sentence is without merit.
We note that the state incorrectly explained the maximum sentences. For example, in case number CR00-16648, Boles was charged with grand theft and forgery, which arose on the same date with the same victims. The prosecutor's statement that he could receive 15 years total on this case would appear to violate Hale v. State, 630 So.2d 521 (Fla.1994) ( ). The same is true in case numbers CR00-16647 and CR00-5488. Thus, the prosecutor's statement at sentencing that Boles was facing a maximum of 50 years was incorrect. He was actually facing 30 years.
Generally, when a defendant is incorrectly advised of the maximum sentence, he should be allowed to withdraw his plea. See, e.g., Mantle v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Vanderhoff
...control up to life imprisonment." Consequently, Vanderhoff should be allowed to withdraw his plea. See, e.g., Boles v. State, 827 So.2d 1073, 1074 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (observing that generally, when defendant is incorrectly advised of maximum sentence, he should be allowed to withdraw plea)......
-
Wilson v. State, 3D03-1505.
...Fla. R.Crim. P. Rule 3.850(a)(5)(providing grounds for claims for relief from judgment include "[t]he plea was involuntary"); Boles v. State, 827 So.2d 1073, 1074 (observing "[g]enerally, when a defendant is incorrectly advised of the maximum sentence, he should be allowed to withdraw his p......
- McEachern v. State, 2D02-2530.