Andrew M. Gomez, Appellant,
State of Florida, Appellee.
final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion
under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. James Daniel,
M. Gomez, pro se, Appellant.
Moody, Attorney General, and Anne C. Conley, Assistant
Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
Motion for Clarification is denied, but we withdraw our
previous opinion and substitute the following opinion in its
Andrew M. Gomez, appeals from an order denying his petition
for writ of habeas corpus, which the trial court construed as
a postconviction motion brought pursuant to Florida Rule of
Criminal Procedure 3.850. For the reasons discussed below, we
pleaded guilty to two counts of second-degree murder in
return for a sentencing range of 40 years to life on each
count. He was sentenced to consecutive life sentences. This
Court affirmed his convictions and sentences. See Gomez
v. State, 83 So.3d 713 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).
2017, Appellant filed the instant petition for writ of habeas
corpus, arguing that his guilty plea should be vacated
because there was no factual basis for the charges. He
alleged that there was no preexisting enmity between
Appellant and the victims to support the depraved mind
element of second-degree murder, and that there was no proof
to tie him to the victims' deaths. While Appellant
acknowledged that this claim could have been raised in his
previous postconviction motions, he asserted that his claim
should be considered on the merits to prevent a manifest
injustice. The trial court dismissed the petition with
prejudice, construing it as a successive and untimely rule
3.850 motion. The court also found the claim to be legally
appeal, Appellant does not contest that his claim is untimely
and successive. Rather, he contends that the lack of a
factual basis for his guilty plea rendered it involuntary,
and the failure to correct this issue would result in a
claim is not only procedurally barred, it is legally
meritless. "The main purpose in ascertaining a factual
basis for a plea is to prevent a defendant from mistakenly
pleading to the wrong offense." State v. Sion,
942 So.2d 934, 937 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). "It is not a
matter of weighing the evidence but only to fulfill the
purpose of [Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.172, ] which
is to make certain that a defendant does not plead guilty to
an offense of which he could not possibly be guilty."
Monroe v. State, 318 So.2d 571, 573 (Fla. 4th DCA
1975). "The inquiry which the court should conduct in
order to determine there is a factual basis for the plea of
guilty need not be a 'mini-trial' . . . . [T]he court
may satisfy itself . . . [by] ...