BRIAN BRIGGS v. STATE OF FLORIDA ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •        DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
    FOURTH DISTRICT
    BRIAN BRIGGS,
    Appellant,
    v.
    STATE OF FLORIDA,
    Appellee.
    No. 4D21-1585
    [February 16, 2022]
    Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St.
    Lucie County; Robert E. Belanger, Judge; L.T. Case No.
    562017CF001902B.
    David M. Lamos, Fort Pierce, for appellant.
    Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allan R. Geesey,
    Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
    PER CURIAM.
    Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant was sentenced to fifteen years
    in prison, with a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence. Post-sentence,
    he filed a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(l),
    seeking to withdraw his plea of nolo contendere. Appellant’s motion
    contended that his plea was involuntary because his attorney failed to
    inform him that he was eligible for a youthful offender status. The trial
    court denied the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing, stating in
    its order that “even if the court had the discretion to impose a Youthful
    Offender sentence, based upon the egregious facts of this case, the court
    would impose the same sentence, regardless.”
    “[W]hen a motion to withdraw is filed after sentencing, the burden is
    upon the appellant to show that ‘a manifest injustice has occurred.’” Hall
    v. State, 
    72 So. 3d 290
    , 293 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (quoting Snodgrass v.
    State, 
    837 So. 2d 507
    , 508 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)). Appellant failed to satisfy
    this burden. Appellant has not asserted, either in his motion below or in
    his appeal, that but for his attorney’s misadvice, Appellant would not have
    pled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. “This is fatal to his
    claim.” Alfred v. State, 
    998 So. 2d 1197
    , 1200 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).
    Moreover, in light of the trial court’s pronouncement that it would not have
    reduced Appellant’s sentence per the permissive (not mandatory) youthful
    offender sentencing option, Appellant has not demonstrated prejudice or
    harmful error. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
    denying the motion to withdraw plea.
    Affirmed.
    CONNER, C.J., FORST and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.
    *         *         *
    Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-1585

Filed Date: 2/16/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/16/2022