Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed January 26, 2022.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D21-2104
Lower Tribunal No. F17-15733
________________
Mario A. Manborde,
Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Appellee.
An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from
the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Laura Anne Stuzin, Judge.
Mario A. Manborde, in proper person.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and EMAS and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Rodriguez v. State,
223 So. 3d 1095, 1097 (Fla. 3d DCA
2017) (affirming trial court’s denial of a motion for postconviction relief
seeking to vacate a judgment and sentence entered pursuant to a negotiated
plea, observing: “The record, which includes the plea colloquy, clearly
refutes these claims, and under Florida law, a defendant is bound by the
statements he makes under oath during a plea colloquy. See Henry v. State,
920 So. 2d 1245, 1246 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (“This motion presents the all-
too-common occurrence where defendants, in an attempt to invalidate their
pleas, contend they committed perjury when they sought to have their pleas
accepted. Defendants are bound by the statements made by them under
oath ....”); Iacono v. State,
930 So. 2d 829, 831–32 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
(holding that defendants “are bound by their sworn answers” during a plea
colloquy). As the Fourth District Court of Appeal stated in Scheele v. State,
953 So. 2d 782, 785 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007), “[a] plea conference is not a
meaningless charade to be manipulated willy-nilly after the fact; it is a formal
ceremony, under oath, memorializing a crossroads in a case.”))
2
