Hall v. State
| Decision Date | 23 June 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 46588.,46588. |
| Citation | 316 So.2d 279 |
| Parties | Foy B. HALL, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
James A. Gardner, Public Defender, and Richard W. Seymour, Asst. Public Defender, for petitioner.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Mary Jo M. Gallay, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Second District Court of Appeal reported at 303 So.2d 417 (Fla.App.2d 1974). The decision sought to be reviewed conflicts with Lyles v. State, 299 So.2d 146 (Fla.App. 1st 1974).
At issue is the failure of the trial judge to properly follow the guilty plea procedure outlined in Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(j). As set forth in the Second District's opinion, the record clearly reflects that the trial court failed to determine a factual basis for the plea. The Second District certified as of great public interest the same question as set forth in Williams v. State, 316 So.2d 267 (Fla. 1975). We have jurisdiction under Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution.
At his arraignment in the presence of the state attorney and public defender, the defendant, Hall, pleaded guilty to the below-mentioned charge. An extremely short and summary inquiry was made by the trial judge. No suggestion of further inquiry was made by either counsel. It is apparent that the defendant and his counsel were primarily interested in having the defendant remain on his own recognizance pending a presentence investigation report. His record justifies this concern. At the sentencing, the trial judge directly questioned the defendant concerning his criminal record. The defendant confirmed that his criminal record was as follows: breaking and entering in 1955, with a sentence of two years; breaking and entering in 1958 with a sentence of six years; escape in 1959 with a sentence of one year; larceny of an automobile in 1959 with a sentence of three years; and attempted robbery in 1972, with no sentence being mentioned. The instant offense was breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor.
Clearly, this is not an inexperienced defendant. His answers to the court's inquiries were as follows:
The aforementioned questions immediately followed the trial judge's review of the defendant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Edwards v. State
...v. United States, supra, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172 provides no immunity to counsel for his derelictions. Cf. Hall v. State, 316 So.2d 279 (Fla.1975) (holding that counsel are ethically bound to see that proper procedural steps are followed in accepting a guilty This brings us......
-
Griffin v. State
...designed to ensure that a defendant's rights are fully protected when he or she enters a plea to a criminal charge. Hall v. State, 316 So.2d 279, 280 (Fla.1975). Under rule 3.172(c), a determination of voluntariness must be made based on a court inquiry to determine that the defendant under......
- Davis v. State
-
Deaver v. State, 75--248
...Fla.App.1974, 293 So.2d 135. At any rate, the error complained of was harmless. Williams v. State, Fla.1975, 316 So.2d 267; Hall v. State, Fla.1975, 316 So.2d 279. The trial court erred in failing to give appellant credit for All the time he spent in the county jail before sentence in compl......