Surace v. State, s. 49965
| Decision Date | 23 June 1977 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 49965,50485,s. 49965 |
| Citation | 351 So.2d 702 |
| Parties | Rocco J. SURACE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Mark King Leban, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Richard W. Prospect, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
These are consolidated appeals, one of which is from a judgment convicting defendant of first degree murder, involuntary sexual battery, and kidnapping, resulting in a sentence of death and concurrent sentences of life imprisonment. We have jurisdiction of this appeal.
The other appeal is from an order of the trial court denying defendant's motion to set aside the imposition of the sentences pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. This appeal was transferred to us by the District Court of Appeal.
The defendant, after withdrawing pleas of not guilty, entered pleas of guilty in all charges and was adjudged guilty. His waiver of the penalty hearing over the objection of the state attorney was refused by the trial judge. The jury recommended the death penalty. The sentences were then imposed.
Defendant, through counsel other than trial counsel, then filed a motion to vacate the sentences and the withdrawal of the guilty pleas on the ground that the pleas were induced by a commitment of the trial judge which was communicated to him by his court-appointed counsel. The motion was bolstered by written statements of trial counsel. The record is sufficient to bring this case squarely within the rule pronounced by this Court in Costello v. State, 260 So.2d 198 (Fla.1972).
The pleas were based on a failure of communication or misunderstanding of the facts. In the colloquy preceding the plea the defendant was not asked if any promises were made to him. The defendant has established to our satisfaction that he was prejudiced by an honest misunderstanding which contaminated the voluntariness of the pleas.
The judgments and sentences are reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial judge with instructions to grant the motion for withdrawal of the guilty pleas and proceed to trial.
It is so ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spinkellink v. Wainwright
...for several reasons. First, in Florida a defendant may be sentenced to death whether he pleads guilty or not guilty. E. g., Surace v. State, 351 So.2d 702 (Fla.1977); Thompson v. State, 351 So.2d 701 (Fla.1977); Lamadline v. State, 303 So.2d 17 (Fla.1974). United States v. Jackson, supra, t......
-
Thompson v. Wainwright
...to death, but these pleas and sentences were set aside by the Florida Supreme Court. Thompson v. State, 351 So.2d 701 (1977); Surace v. State, 351 So.2d 702 (1977). Upon remand, Thompson again pled guilty, and again was sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, 389 So.2d 197 (......
-
Surace v. Wainwright
...pursuant to Rule 3.850 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the Defendants were returned for a new trial. Surace v. State, 351 So.2d 702 (Fla.1977). Thereafter, the Petitioner entered a plea of not guilty, was tried by a jury, convicted of second degree murder, false imprisonment......
-
Thompson v. State, 55697
...testified at Surace's trial and took credit for the entire incident. It is so ordered. 1 Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla.Const.2 Surace v. State, 351 So.2d 702 (Fla.1977).3 Surace v. State, 378 So.2d 895 (Fla. 3d DCA ...