CASANUEVA, Chief Judge.
Fidensio Gallegos appeals the denial of his postsentence motion to withdraw plea filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(l). Because the trial court failed to sufficiently ensure that Mr. Gallegos's pleas were knowing and voluntary, we reverse the denial of the motion to withdraw plea.
Mr. Gallegos pleaded open to a number of second- and third-degree felonies and one misdemeanor, all spread across two case numbers. The following transpired as part of the plea colloquy:
The trial court then accepted the pleas and sentencing was postponed to a later date.
At the sentencing hearing, the trial court found that Mr. Gallegos qualified for habitual felony offender (HFO) sentences.
After sentencing, Mr. Gallegos filed his motion to withdraw plea. One of his arguments in that motion was that his plea was not voluntary because the trial court failed to discuss the maximum penalties associated with violent career criminal or habitual felony offender sentences. The trial court held a hearing without Mr. Gallegos's presence. Instead, the trial court accepted the representations of Mr. Gallegos's attorney as to what Mr. Gallegos would have stated if he had testified at the hearing. Mr. Gallegos would have testified that, at the time he tendered his pleas, he did not understand the trial court could enhance his sentences so that they were greater than the maximum numbers the court had identified during the plea colloquy. The trial court responded that it did tell Mr. Gallegos it could enhance his sentences; it just did not tell him how much the enhancement could be. Defense counsel argued:
The trial court denied the motion on all grounds.
One basis for withdrawal of a plea after sentencing is that the plea was not entered voluntarily. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.170(l); Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A)(ii)(c). "Before accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the trial judge shall determine that the plea is voluntarily entered. ..." Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.172(a). To make this determination, the trial court must ensure that the defendant understands the maximum possible penalty for the charges to which the defendant seeks to enter a plea. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.172(c).
Before accepting his pleas, the trial court did no more than tell Mr. Gallegos that it could potentially enhance his sentences under the habitual felony offender and violent career criminal statutes. We hold that this warning, standing alone, did not ensure that Mr. Gallegos understood he was facing ten-year sentences on third-degree felonies, especially because the trial court had just told him that those same offenses were punishable by up to five years in prison. Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion by denying Mr. Gallegos's subsequent motion to withdraw plea. See Schriber v. State, 959 So.2d 1254, 1256 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (applying an abuse of discretion standard to the denial of a motion to withdraw plea). Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions to permit Mr. Gallegos to withdraw his pleas.
Reversed and remanded with instructions and for further proceedings.
VILLANTI and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.