Knowles v. State, 77-1095

Decision Date21 March 1978
Docket NumberNo. 77-1095,77-1095
Citation356 So.2d 885
PartiesGeorge KNOWLES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Eugene P. Spellman, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and Anthony C. Musto, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., and NATHAN and HUBBART, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appealing from an order of the trial court which was rendered after an evidentiary hearing, and which denied his Rule 3.850 motion to vacate his sentence, appellant urges that he was not aware of the mandatory three year sentence under Section 775.087, Florida Statutes (1975), when he pled nolo contendere to the charge of attempted murder in violation of Sections 777.04(1) and 782.04, Florida Statutes (1975).

On April 29, 1976, appellant, through negotiations with the public defender, who was his counsel, the state attorney and the court, withdrew his not guilty plea and entered a plea of nolo contendere. This plea was entered with the understanding that a pre-sentence investigation would be ordered and that in addition, the court would give appellant the opportunity to present factual matters regarding the case in mitigation only, and that depending on such facts and investigation, the court might sentence him "to anything up to ten years." Appellant contends that his attorney advised him that he possibly could get probation, and that since he did not understand the significance of his plea when entered, it is mandatory that this court vacate his plea of nolo contendere. Appellant relies on Norris v. State, 343 So.2d 964 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), as authority for his position.

The record of the evidentiary hearing reflects that appellant's trial attorney, after speaking with the court and the state attorney, and prior to the nolo contendere plea, told appellant,

"That a pre-sentence investigation would be ordered and that further, we would be given an opportunity at the time of sentencing to present witnesses in our behalf as to the factual allegations concerning the charge.

That if certain representations, which were made to me by Mr. Knowles, were shown by the testimony of these witnesses, that although a ten year cap was placed on the no contest plea, the Court would consider sentencing Mr. Knowles to something less. Even possibly probation. However, if that testimony was not forthcoming, then he was just about assured that he would be sentenced to ten years.

Q Did you, at any time, indicate to him, or did he indicate to you, that he felt that that testimony would not be forthcoming?

A No. He assured me that the testimony would be forthcoming.

A If the testimony were what he said it would be, that that representation having been made to the Court, the Court indicated the possibility of probation."

In Norris v. State, supra, appellant's averment that she had the impression that probation was a possibility in her case, sufficiently alleged for the purpose of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(j), that she was not apprised of the significance of her plea, to show that the plea was not voluntarily entered. As a result, an evidentiary hearing was required. As stated on page 964,

". ....

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Bryant v. State, 56603
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • July 17, 1980
    ...Under Florida law, however, there is no requirement that a defendant be advised of any mandatory minimum sentence. Knowles v. State, 356 So.2d 885 (Fla.3d DCA 1978); Gonzalez v. State, 300 So.2d 691 (Fla.2d DCA 1974). See also Scott v. State, 369 So.2d 330 (Fla.1979) (upholding the constitu......
  • Polk v. State, 79-1140
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • November 3, 1981
    ...cert. denied, 348 U.S. 840, 75 S.Ct. 46, 99 L.Ed. 663 (1954); Edwards v. State, 393 So.2d 597 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Knowles v. State, 356 So.2d 885 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (no requirement to advise of mandatory minimum sentence prior to adoption of Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.172(c)(i)). That a convicted felo......
  • State v. Turner, 85-1842
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • August 7, 1986
    ...that there was no requirement under Florida law that the defendant be advised of any mandatory minimum sentence. See Knowles v. State, 356 So.2d 885 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) cert. denied, 361 So.2d 833 (Fla.1978); Gonzalez v. State, 300 So.2d 691 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). In originally accepting the ne......
  • Wilson v. State, NN-339
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • December 21, 1979
    ...holding there is no requirement under Florida law that a defendant be advised of any mandatory minimum sentence, e. g., Knowles v. State, 356 So.2d 885 (Fla.3d DCA 1978), that decision was decided prior to the addition of Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.172(c)(i), requiring the trial judge to advise the de......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT