Knowles v. State, 582 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). · Go Syfert
Search
Knowles v. State, 582 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Hemmy v. State (fladistctapp, 2006-09-27)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Hemmy v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Montgomery v. State, 615 So.2d 226, 227 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (“an allegation that a plea was involuntary or was based on a misunderstanding or mistake can be refuted by a written plea agreement or plea transcript which conclusively establishes the defendant’s understanding and that the plea was not coerced”) (citing Knowles v. State, 582 So.2d 167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Rackley v. State, 571 So.2d 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)).
cited Cited "see" Montgomery v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Knowles v. State, 582 So.2d 167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Rackley v. State, 571 So.2d 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Bland v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2009 · signal: compare · confidence low
See Yeager v. State, 514 So.2d 73 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (reversing a claim of an involuntary plea where the court failed to attach any record portions refuting the claim); compare Knowles v. State, 582 So.2d 167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (affirming where the attached plea agreement and colloquy refuted the claim of an involuntary plea).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
David KNOWLES, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
90-672.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Jul 10, 1991.
582 So. 2d 167
Shivers.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

Michael A. Jones, Powell, Jones & Reid, Niceville, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Carolyn J. Mosley, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

SHIVERS, Chief Judge.

The defendant, David Knowles, appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to withdraw nolo contendere plea, arguing that the plea was based on misunderstanding, mistake, or misrepresentation regarding its consequences. We affirm, as the written plea agreement and the transcript of the plea hearing conclusively establish that the appellant fully understood the maximum authorized sentence at the time[*168] he entered his plea, that he was satisfied with the services of his attorney, that his attorney explained the plea completely before appellant signed the agreement, and that appellant was not coerced by his attorney into signing the agreement. Hagans v. State, 492 So.2d 753 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Thomas v. State, 419 So.2d 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

AFFIRMED.

SMITH and JOANOS, JJ., concur.