factual basis claim in Florida

2013See Williams v. State, 316 So.2d 267, 273 (Fla.1975) (holding that a court may satisfy the factual basis requirement by “statements and admissions made by the defendant, his counsel, and the prosecutor .... ”).

2004“The purpose of the factual basis requirement is to insure ‘that the facts of the case fit the offense with which the defendant is charged.’ ” Davis v. State, 605 So.2d 936, 938 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (quoting Williams v. State, 316 So.2d 267, 271 (Fla.1975)).

2025See MC Liberty Express, Inc. v. All Points Servs., Inc., 252 So. 3d 397, 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“Where a party reasonably believes the factual basis for its claim exists, it is entitled to proceed with its claims and seek to prove those facts.

2025The trial court is free to utilize whatever procedure is best for the particular case before it to ensure that the defendant is entering a plea to the proper offense under the facts of the case.”); Francis v. State, 121 So. 3d 67, 68-69 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (“The State’s proffer during the plea colloquy and defense counsel’s stipulation that there was a factual basis for the plea satisfied the factual basis requirement of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172(a).”). 2

2018See id. (citing Morroni v. Household Fin.

2015Id. at 509 (“If the factual basis for the claim remains disputed, it may be necessary for the trial" court to conduct a limited eviden-tiary hearing, comparable to the hearing used to resolve a Venetian Salami jurisdictional dispute, to determine whether this case falls within the ambit of chapter 766.”).

2015When a complaint is vague or raises an unanswered , question of whether medical negligence is involved, the “parties are entitled to a process that presents evidence by affidavit or evidentiary hearing.” Id.

2013See Cocoves v. Campbell, 819 So.2d 910, 913 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (“An affirmative defense of fraud that is not pleaded with particularity is deemed waived.”); Blue Supply Corp. v. Novos Electro Mech., Inc., 990 So.2d 1157, 1159-60 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (holding that the factual basis for a claim of fraud must be pled with particularity and must specifically identify misrepresentations or omissions of fact, as well as time, place or manner in which they were made).

2013See Cocoves v. Campbell, 819 So.2d 910, 913 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (“An affirmative defense of fraud that is not pleaded with particularity is deemed waived.”); Blue Supply Corp. v. Novos Electro Mech., Inc., 990 So.2d 1157, 1159-60 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (holding that the factual basis for a claim of fraud must be pled with particularity and must specifically identify misrepresentations or omissions of fact, as well as time, place or manner in which they were made).

2011Hill, 31 So.3d at 923-24 (emphasis supplied) (citation omitted).

2007See Peede v. State, 748 So.2d 253, 257 (Fla.1999) (stating that summary denial can be affirmed where claim is conclusively refuted by record or facially invalid).

2004“The purpose of the factual basis requirement is to insure ‘that the facts of the case fit the offense with which the defendant is charged.’ ” Davis v. State, 605 So.2d 936, 938 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (quoting Williams v. State, 316 So.2d 267, 271 (Fla.1975)).

2004Accord State v. Pelham, 737 So.2d 572, 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (“The purpose of determining whether a factual basis for a plea exists is to prevent a defendant from mistakenly entering a plea to the wrong offense.”).

2004See Office of the State Attorney v. Jimenez, 845 So.2d 914 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (holding that a sworn affidavit by claimant, which was consistent with facts alleged in the forfeiture complaint, sufficient to demonstrate required ownership interest).

2004We have further stated that standing to participate in an adversarial preliminary hearing is "a preliminary issue for the court" on which "the claimant must provide a sworn statement setting forth the factual basis of the claim." Gonzalez v. City of Homestead, 825 So.2d 1050, 1052 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) ("The oath serves as a cautionary device and, in a case of a false statement, a possible predicate for a perjury prosecution.") Thus, it is clear where standing is at issue at the outset of an adversarial preliminary hearing, that the claimant may not simply fall back on the allegations of the seiz

2003See McCune v. State, 831 So.2d 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); see also Harris v. State, 801 So.2d 973 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (affirming the denial of a rule 3.800(a) claim where the defendant did not state a factual basis for the claim).

2003See McCune v. State, 831 So.2d 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); see also Harris v. State, 801 So.2d 973 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (affirming the denial of a rule 3.800(a) claim where the defendant did not state a factual basis for the claim).

1994See Popper, 595 So.2d at 104 .

1991We find no error in denying the mistrial, State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986); Gonzalez v. State, 511 So.2d 703 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) 1 or in refusing the independent act instruction. 2 Parker v. State, 458 So.2d 750 (Fla.1984); Compare Goodwin v. State, 405 So.2d 170 (Fla.1981).

1976See In re Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 272 So.2d 65 (Fla. 1972).

1974See this court's opinion in Kelly v. State, 254 So.2d 22 (1971), wherein we stated at page 24 the following: "There is yet another reason reflected in the record because of which the trial court properly accepted the guilty plea.