Robles v. State

336 So.3d 378

Amber Nicole ROBLES, Appellant,

v.STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2D21-714

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 18, 2022

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Joanna Beth Conner, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Johnny T. Salgado, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa; and Taylor A. Schell, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa (substituted as counsel of record), for Appellee.

LaROSE, Judge.

After pleading no contest to resisting an officer without violence, see § 843.02, Fla. Stat. (2020), during the county court's mass virtual arraignment, Amber Nicole Robles appeals an order withholding adjudication and imposing court costs. We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A), 9.020(h)(1)(I), 9.140(b)(1)(B).

Ms. Robles argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying her motion to withdraw plea. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.170(l ). We conclude that Ms. Robles established a manifest injustice where the trial court failed to advise her of her right to appointed counsel before she pleaded. Consequently, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

I. Background

The probable cause affidavit recites that a law enforcement officer initiated a traffic stop of a vehicle that rolled through a red light. The driver, Pablo Robles, exited the vehicle. The officer directed him to step back into the vehicle. Mr. Robles told the officer not to tell him what to do, but he did as instructed. The officer explained the reason for the stop. He saw a female in the passenger seat.

The officer asked the female for identification, but Mr. Robles told the officer that he had no reason to know who she was. The officer replied that he "needed to identify the female." Mr. Robles "continued to be irate and curse at [the officer]." The female "advised that she did not need to provide any information." The officer continued to ask the female for identification; the driver "continued to be irate."

After several minutes, Mr. Robles "rolled up his window and locked the doors to the vehicle." The officer asked the female to step out of the vehicle. She complied, but again, refused to identify herself. Upon further investigation, the officer learned that the female was Ms. Robles. He arrested her. The State charged her with resisting an officer without violence.

The trial court conducted a virtual mass arraignment. At the start, the trial court addressed the defendants present:

The way we will proceed this morning is that I will call your name. I will advise you of the criminal charge which has been brought against you and the maximum possible penalty. I will then turn to the State of Florida ... and ask if [the prosecutor] has an offer in your case. In some of the situations here this morning I would be able to take your plea virtually, if you wish to accept the State's offer....

If you decide you want to accept the State's offer you would enter a plea of guilty or no contest. Entering a plea of guilty means that you are admitting to each and every element of—excuse me—of the offense charged. You would waive certain constitutional rights.... You would waive certain constitutional rights, which I will go over with you in just a moment and you will be sentenced today.

You can enter a plea of no contest. Which means you are neither admitting nor denying the criminal charges against you. However, you believe it is in your best interests to resolve the case today. You will waive the same constitutional rights and you will be sentenced today. You can also enter a plea of not guilty and if you do that, then we will set your case off for pretrial conference in four or five weeks, and I will discuss with you whether or not you need the representation of an attorney.

The constitutional rights that you will be waiving if you enter a plea [of] guilty or no contest are as follows. You are giving up your right to remain silent. Your right not to be compelled to incriminate yourself. Your right to compel witnesses to appear and testify on your behalf through court subpoenas. The presumption of innocence and your right to require the State to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, before that presumption is removed. Your right to a trial. Your right to testify at that trial and your right to appeal any action [t]he [c]ourt has taken in your case unless [t]he [c]ourt enters an illegal judgement and sentence.

....

Now, if you would like to enter a plea of not guilty, I will ask you if you [can] afford to hire your own attorney. If ... you can then again, we will set you off for pretrial conference 4 to 5 weeks away. You will be required to return on that particular day with your counsel. If you cannot afford to hire an attorney, then I will discuss with you whether you need representation of the office of the Public Defender. If you do and you qualify, then I will provisionally appoint them today. You will have to fill out an application. There is a $50.00 fee for that application, and then there is a fee for their services at the end of your case—if you are found guilty or enter a plea of guilty or no contest. I think that pretty much covers it, so I am going to go ahead and start calling the docket.

(Emphasis added.) The trial court addressed Ms. Robles:

THE COURT: Alright, Ma'am. You are here charged with Resisting an Officer without Force and Violence. That is a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable by up to one year in the county jail, and/or a $1000.00 fine. [See §§ 775.082(4)(a), .083(1)(d), Fla. Stat. (2020).] Mr. Hardin, is there an offer to Ms. Robles?

MR. HARDIN: Yes, Judge, it's fines and court costs and $50.00 additional cost of prosecution.

THE COURT: Alright, so Ma'am, if you wish to resolve your case today, it would be for fine and court cost. Plus, $50.00 additional cost of prosecution to the State of Florida. Or you can enter a plea of not guilty and speak with an attorney. What would you like to do?

THE DEFENDANT: I'll take the offer.

....

THE COURT: Alright, Ma'am, were you on the line earlier when I went over the constitutional rights that you are giving up or waiving by entering into a plea today?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: And do you understand those rights, and more importantly do you understand you are giving up those rights by accepting this offer here today.

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

....

THE COURT: How do you plead, Ma'am, to Resisting an Officer without Force and Violence?

THE DEFENDANT: No content [sic].

THE COURT: Alright Ma'am, I do find that there is a factual basis. I also find that you have freely, knowingly, and voluntarily entered into your plea and waived your constitutional rights. I am going to accept your plea. I am going to withhold adjudication. Sentence you to fine and court cost of $320.50, and then an additional $50.00 cost of prosecution to the State of Florida. These financial obligations, Ma'am, are going to be sent to the Clerks’ Collections Department. You are going to receive some information in the mail within the next few days that is going to explain to you how to go about setting up a payment plan regarding these obligations. Do you understand?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I do, Your Honor.

(Emphasis added.) Ms. Robles entered her plea without the benefit of counsel.

The trial court rendered a written order finding that Ms. Robles waived counsel, withholding adjudication, imposing court costs, and including an "Order of No Imprisonment" that stated that "prior to trial in this case[, the trial court] hereby files its statement of intention that imprisonment will not be imposed upon the defendant in the event of conviction."

The following week, Ms. Robles, through counsel, moved to withdraw her plea. She contended that the trial court failed to inform her of her right to counsel at the arraignment and that the factual basis for the plea was insufficient.

The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the motion. Ms. Robles testified that her husband stopped the vehicle. She exited the vehicle to tend to her minor child who was in the backseat. She stated that an officer told her to get back into the vehicle; she did. The officer asked for her husband's identification; he complied. The officer also asked for Ms. Robles’ identification, but she refused.

Ms. Robles testified that her husband rolled up his window and locked the door, but her window was down and the officer asked, again, for her identification. Ms. Robles testified that the officer did not tell her why he wanted her identification. The officer then knocked on the husband's window, the husband rolled his window down, and the officer again stated that Ms. Robles had to provide her identification. Ms. Robles, again, refused. The officer directed her to exit the vehicle, and Ms. Robles did so. The officers then searched the vehicle, telling Ms. Robles they believed there were drugs in the vehicle. None were found. Ms. Robles also testified, uncontested, that she did not have money for an attorney at the time of her plea. She testified that nobody ever explained that if she could not afford an attorney, the trial court would appoint a public defender.

The trial court denied the motion, finding that Ms. Robles failed to show manifest injustice or prejudice that would require the withdrawal of her plea. The trial court found that the plea colloquy showed that Ms. Robles understood and voluntarily waived her right to court appointed counsel. It also found that there was a factual basis for the plea.

Ms. Robles’ counsel moved the trial court to appoint the public defender to appeal the denial of her motion. The trial court granted the motion.

II. Discussion

On appeal, Ms. Robles argues, principally, that her plea was involuntary and a manifest injustice occurred when the trial court failed to advise her of her right to appointed counsel at arraignment. Stating that she did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive her right to counsel, Ms. Robles...