Pope v. State
| Decision Date | 19 October 1908 |
| Citation | 56 Fla. 81,47 So. 487 |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
| Parties | POPE v. STATE. |
Headnotes Filed November 17, 1908.
Error to Circuit Court, Levy County; James T. Wills, Judge.
Willis Pope was indicted for assault with intent to murder, and entered a plea of guilty. Thereafter he presented a motion for leave to withdraw his plea of guilty, and to file a plea of not guilty, which was denied, and he brings error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
In a criminal prosecution, a defendant has a right to plead guilty; and the effect of such a plea is to authorize the imposition of the sentence prescribed by law upon a verdict of guilty of the crime sufficiently charged in the indictment or information.
A plea of guilty should be entirely voluntary by one competent to know the consequences, and should not be induced by fear misapprehension, persuasion, promises, inadvertence, or ignorance.
While the trial court may exercise discretion in permitting or refusing to permit a plea of guilty to be withdrawn for the purpose of pleading not guilty, yet such discretion is subject to review by an appellate court.
A defendant should be permitted to withdraw a plea of guilty given unadvisedly when application therefor is duly made in good faith and sustained by proofs, and proper offer is made to go to trial on a plea of not guilty.
The law favors trials on the merits; and, if the discretion of the trial court is abused in denying leave to withdraw a plea of guilty and to go to trial on the merits, the appellate court may interfere.
Where a defendant deliberately pleads guilty to a criminal charge under circumstances that should reasonably have prompted him and his counsel to be prepared to meet the charge, and no motion is made for leave to withdraw the plea of guilty till after the state witnesses have been discharged, and there is no direct allegation or proof that the plea was entered under mental weakness, mistake, surprise, misapprehension, fear promise, or other circumstances that put the defendant at a disadvantage in protecting his rights, the discretion of the trial court is not shown to have been abused in refusing permission to withdraw the plea of guilty.
Where a bill of exceptions is made up and authenticated under special rule 3 (51 Fla. 22), and the bill of exceptions does not contain an authenticated statement that all the evidence is included therein, such bill of exceptions will under the rule be treated as not embracing all the evidence.
John R. Willis, Fred Cubberly, and O. T. Greene, for plaintiff in error.
The plaintiff in error pleaded guilty to an indictment for assault with intent to murder Gus Elliott. The next day he presented a motion for leave to withdraw his plea of guilty and to file a plea of not guilty, and for process for witnesses. In an affidavit in support of the motion he deposed that he was duly arraigned 'without his attorneys being in court or being sent for, and without the advice of counsel, and pleaded guilty to said charge, but that in so doing he understood that he was only pleading guilty to the charge of shooting Gus Elliott, which affiant admits that he did, but avers that he did so in self-defense.' The state attorney presented an affidavit stating that the grand jury returned a true bill against defendant pending the trial of a civil case, and that he then announced in open court that all defendants under bond would be arraigned immediately upon the conclusion of the civil case then being tried; that, when defendant was called for arraignment on the same day, he failed to answer, his bond was estreated, and he was then brought into court by the sheriff, 'whereupon the defendant was duly arraigned in open court and pleaded guilty as charged, and deponent asked defendant a second time if he desired to plead guilty, and defendant answered he did, and afterwards asked deponent if he could say something to the court, and deponent told him he could before he was sentenced; that this deponent never had any conversation whatever with defendant before the arraignment.' Counsel for the defendant presented an affidavit stating he had spoken to the state attorney about defending the accused, but he did not deny that the announcement as to arraignment was made in open court as deposed by the state attorney, and offered no good reason for not being in attendance on the court when the defendant was arraigned.
The order of the court denying the motion is as follows ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Arnold
... ... People, 224 Ill. 456, 8 Ann. Cas. 235, 79 ... N.E. 570; Deloach v. State, 77 Miss. 691, 27 So ... 618; Gauldin v. Crawford, 30 Ga. 674; Dobosky v ... State, 183 Ind. 488, 109 N.E. 742; People v ... McCrory, 41 Cal. 458; People v. Merhige, 212 ... Mich. 601, 180 N.W. 418; Pope v. State, 56 Fla. 81, ... 16 Ann. Cas. 972, 47 So. 487; Bachelor v. State, 189 ... Ind. 69, 125 N.E. 773; Parker v. State, 189 Ind. 85, ... 125 N.E. 772; Trkulja v. State, 189 Ind. 700, 125 ... N.E. 773; Bachelor v. State, 189 Ind. 701, 125 N.E ... 778; State v. Dunham, 149 La. 1013, ... ...
-
State v. Hamilton
...85 Ind. 318; Little v. Commonwealth, 142 Ky. 92. Or if it appears that the plea was entered under some mistake or misapprehension. Pope v. State, 56 Fla. 81; Davis v. 20 Ga. 647; People v. Byzon, 267 Ill. 498; State v. Boutte, 119 La. 134. The matter permitting a plea of guilty is within th......
-
People v. Coates
...provisions of the probation law.' In People v. Merhige, 212 Mich. 601, 612, 180 N.W. 418, 423, we quoted with approval from Pope v. State, 56 Fla. 81, 47 So. 487: "In a criminal prosecution a defendant has a right to plead guilty; and the effect of such a plea is to authorize the imposition......
- Mcdonald v. State
-
Judicial suicide or constitutional autonomy? A capital defendant's right to plead guilty.
...to plead guilty to murder in 1854." (citing Act of Apr. 28, 1854, [section] 87, 1854 Wash. Laws 100, 115-16)). See also Pope v. State, 47 So. 487, 488 (Fla. 1908) (asserting definitely a defendant's right to plead guilty); State v. Kaufman, 2 N.W. 275, 276 (Iowa 1879) (stating that "the rig......