Opinion ID: 1609097
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sufficiency of Plea

Text: Brant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence of his guilt or the validity of his guilty plea. However, in all direct appeals where the death penalty has been imposed, this Court reviews the record to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to support the murder conviction. Fla. R.App. P. 9.142(a)(6); see also Winkles v. State, 894 So.2d 842, 847 (Fla. 2005) (citing Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(i)). In Winkles, this Court explained: [W]hen a defendant has pled guilty to the charges resulting in a penalty of death, this Court's review shifts to the knowing, intelligent, and voluntary nature of that plea. Lynch v. State, 841 So.2d 362, 375 (Fla.2003); see Koenig v. State, 597 So.2d 256, 257 n. 2 (Fla.1992) (stating that where a death-sentenced defendant pled guilty, [i]n order to review the judgment of conviction ..., we must review the propriety of [the defendant's] plea, since it is the plea which formed the basis for his conviction). Proper review requires this Court to scrutinize the plea to ensure that the defendant was made aware of the consequences of his plea, was apprised of the constitutional rights he was waiving, and pled guilty voluntarily. Ocha v. State, 826 So.2d 956, 965 (Fla.2002). 894 So.2d at 847. The record in this case contains competent, substantial evidence showing that Brant's plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. The trial court conducted an extensive colloquy in which the trial court explained each count and the possible sentences to Brant. The trial court repeatedly informed Brant that his pleas were open guilty pleas which means that ... there is no agreement or understanding between you and the State as to what sentence I will impose when you come back for sentencing. The trial court explained to Brant his constitutional right to be tried by a jury, his right to call and confront witnesses, and, if convicted, his right to present mitigating evidence and receive an advisory sentence from a jury. Brant answered that he understood the consequences of his pleas and the rights he was waiving. The trial court also informed Brant that the pleas could subject Brant to involuntary commitment as a sexually violent predator and that by entering guilty pleas, Brant would waive all appellate issues except the expressly reserved issue of the trial court's denial of Brant's motion to dismiss the kidnapping count. Again, Brant answered that he understood. After the factual basis for the pleas was established, the trial court inquired whether Brant was satisfied with the advice, investigation, and representation provided by defense counsel. When asked if there was anything Brant thought counsel should do, he answered, No sir. They have done everything. Finally, the trial court inquired about Brant's health and education. Brant answered that he had taken Wellbutrin for depression at 3 a.m. that morning. When asked if the medication affected his ability to communicate and understand anything discussed that day, Brant answered that it did not, and his counsel confirmed that they were able to adequately communicate with Brant that morning. When asked about his ability to read the plea form, Brant stated that he dropped out a month until [high school] graduation and assured the court that he could read and write. Based on the thorough discussion between the trial court, Brant, and Brant's counsel, we conclude that Brant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered his plea to first-degree murder, and the trial court properly accepted it.