5D03-2176 Gary Caples v. State

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Fifth District Court » 2004 » 5D03-2176 Gary Caples v. State

State: Florida

Court: Florida Fifth District Court

Docket No: 5D03-2176

Case Date: 01/05/2004

Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2003

GARY CAPLES, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. / Opinion Filed January 9, 2004 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hernando County, Jack Springstead, Judge Gary Caples, Bushnell, pro se. Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Pamela J. Koller, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. GRIFFIN, J. Appellant, Gary Caples ["Caples"], appeals the lower court's denial of his motion to withdraw a plea. We find no error and affirm. Caples was arrested in February 1999, and subsequently charged with robbery, driving while license suspended/revoked and obtaining property by means of worthless check. In October 1999, he entered into a plea agreement pursuant to which he was sentenced to eight years for robbery, two five-year terms for felony driving with license suspended or revoked and a five-year term for obtaining property by means of worthless check. All sentences were to run concurrently. CASE NO. 5D03-2176

Approximately a year and one-half later, Caples filed a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), claiming that his sentences for driving while license suspended or revoked were illegal, based on the decision of the First District Court of Appeal in Huss v. State , 771 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). In Caples v. State , 790 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) ["Caples I"], this court affirmed the trial court's denial of that motion. The panel commented that: "his means of relief, if indeed he is entitled to relief, is by withdrawing his plea . . . " Id. at 1144. On August 31, 2001, Caples filed his amended motion to withdraw plea, setting forth three principal grounds: (1) that his plea was "contractually void" based on a material mistake of law, i.e. that his offenses were felonies, not misdemeanors; (2) that his plea had been coerced and that he had not understood the elements of the charges against him; and (3) that his plea was involuntary because he had been advised that he would not have postincarceration supervision, but subsequently learned that he was exposed to conditional release supervision. The trial court denied Caples' motion to withdraw his plea on all three grounds. In Caples I, this court took pains to make clear that a motion to withdraw plea was a possible available remedy, not a certain remedy. The trial court considered all the relevant facts and circumstances and determined that it was not appropriate to permit Caples to withdraw his plea. We have no basis to reverse the trial court's decision.1

Caples filed a separate 3.850 motion seeking collateral relief claiming his plea was involuntary based on ineffective assistance of counsel, see O'Quinn v. State , 2003 WL 22867657 (Fla. 5th DCA Dec. 5, 2003). The trial court denied relief and this court has affirmed. Caples v. State , Case No. 02-3693 (Fla. 5th DCA Nov. 12, 2003). -2-

1

AFFIRMED. SAWAYA and MONACO, JJ., concur.

-3-

Download 5D03-2176 Gary Caples v. State.pdf