Defendant alleges that the trial court erred in accepting his plea of nolo con-tendere without first determining whether such plea was voluntarily made.1 Although it might be inferred from the record that defendant’s plea of nolo con-tendere to a lesser included offense as a result of plea bargaining was freely and voluntarily made, the plea colloquy when viewed under the requirements of our plea rule does not demonstrate that defendant’s plea was voluntary. See Rule 3.170(a), F.R.Cr.P.2 See also Costello v. State, Fla.1972, 260 So.2d 198; Russell v. State, Fla.App.1970, 233 So.2d 148; McPherson v. State, Fla.App.1970, 237 So.2d 18. Cf. Kelly v. State, Fla.App.1971, 254 So.2d 22.

The judgment appealed from is reversed with directions to set aside the plea of nolo contendere as entered with the entry of a new plea and further proceedings in accordance therewith.

Reversed.