MORALES v. STATE (2022)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Rigoberto MORALES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D22-700

Decided: November 30, 2022

Before LOGUE, SCALES and GORDO, JJ.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Susan S. Lerner, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Katryna Santa Cruz, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Affirmed. See LeDuc v. State, 415 So. 2d 721, 722 (Fla. 1982) (finding that where a motion to withdraw a plea occurs after sentencing, the defendant has the burden of proving that a “manifest injustice has occurred”); Ingraham v. State, 248 So. 3d 153, 154–55 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (“[T]he motion to withdraw plea must be more than a mere recitation of general allegations.”); Powell v. State, 929 So. 2d 54, 55 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (“[C]onclusory allegations are insufficient. Rather, a defendant must offer some proof that his plea was not voluntarily entered.”); Saintiler v. State, 109 So. 3d 303, 305 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (affirming a trial court's summary denial of a defendant's motion to withdraw a plea as the motion was “facially insufficient because the [defendant] did not set forth any factual basis to support his conclusory allegations”).

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network