Alexander Arroyo v. State of Florida
2016 WL 5746665
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 6th2016Background
- Alexander Arroyo pleaded no contest to four counts of violating a domestic-violence injunction; the court imposed time-served on one count and three consecutive one-year probation terms on the others.
- Less than a week later Arroyo admitted violating probation; at revocation he admitted the violations and the court found the plea knowing and voluntary.
- At disposition the State argued Arroyo was entitled only to 69 days’ credit per count (post-probation-violation custody); the defense contended there had been a stipulation to 292 days’ credit total.
- The court sentenced Arroyo to three consecutive 364-day terms and awarded 69 days’ credit on each count (total 207 days). Arroyo moved to withdraw his admission, alleging ineffective/misleading advice about credit and involuntariness.
- The trial court denied the motion after an evidentiary hearing; Arroyo appealed arguing he should have been allowed to withdraw because he received 207 days rather than the 292 days he says was stipulated.
- The majority affirmed, holding the claim was not preserved and, on the merits, Arroyo failed to show manifest injustice; a dissent would have reversed, finding the admission form and in-court statements created an expectation of 292 days’ credit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Arroyo) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Arroyo may withdraw his admission because he received 207 days’ jail credit rather than 292 days | He relied on his counsel’s statements and an admission form stipulating 292 days’ credit; withholding that credit rendered the plea involuntary and caused manifest injustice | The record shows Arroyo signed and acknowledged the form (which contemplated the judge might not award stipulated credit) and the plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered; the issue on appeal was not preserved | Affirmed — claim not preserved; alternatively, no manifest injustice shown |
| Whether the preservation rule bars appellate review of Arroyo’s specific credit argument | Arroyo raised related claims below but not the precise legal ground now urged on appeal | The State argues the specific legal ground was not raised at trial, so it is unpreserved | Held unpreserved; preservation rule applies |
| Whether the admission form and colloquy required the court to award the stipulated credit | Arroyo contends the form and counsel’s in-court statements constituted a binding stipulation as to credit | State and majority say the form expressly contemplated the judge might not give stipulated credit and preserved appellate rights; no binding promise was made | Court: no binding promise; no manifest injustice |
| Whether failure to grant stipulated credit constitutes manifest injustice allowing plea withdrawal | Arroyo says failing to honor the stipulated credit is a manifest injustice warranting withdrawal | State: heavy burden to show manifest injustice; here voluntariness and knowledge were found and consequences were explained | Court: burden not met; denial of withdrawal within trial court’s discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Spann v. State, 857 So.2d 845 (Fla. 2003) (preservation rule requires raising specific legal grounds at trial)
- Harrell v. State, 894 So.2d 935 (Fla. 2005) (purpose of preservation rule is to give trial judge notice and chance to correct error)
- Campbell v. State, 125 So.3d 733 (Fla. 2013) (defendant seeking plea withdrawal after sentence must show manifest injustice or prejudice)
- State v. Partlow, 840 So.2d 1040 (Fla. 2003) (plea-withdrawal standards; emphasis on finality)
- Edwards v. State, 721 So.2d 744 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (no strict Rule 3.172 colloquy required on probation violation pleas, though judge should ensure defendant knows consequences)
- Green v. State, 700 So.2d 384 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (when negotiated plea terms cannot be honored, defendant may be allowed to withdraw plea)