Amador v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Amador v. State

732 So. 2d 404, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 4655, 1999 WL 211899

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 14, 1999

DocketNo. 98-02045

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 732 So. 2d 404 (Amador v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amador v. State, 732 So. 2d 404, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 4655, 1999 WL 211899 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Miranda C. Amador appeals the sentence imposed pursuant to a plea agreement and a substantial assistance contract. We affirm the sentence, but write to point out that the contract entered into between Amador and the State is woefully inadequate.

The substantial assistance contract in question was vague and did not delineate the actions to be performed by Amador in order to fulfill the requirements of the agreement in light of the almost twenty-year history of “substantial assistance legislation.” See § 893.35(3), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1980). The transcript of the plea colloquy does nothing to demonstrate how the contract was to be completed. In order to ensure that there are no misunderstandings between the parties, the terms of the agreement should be clearly [405]*405set forth in the contract or discussed at the plea hearing. As suggested in Timothee v. State, 721 So.2d 776, 777 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), the court may take measures to protect the confidentiality of the agreement.

Affirmed.

CAMPBELL and SALCINES,, JJ., Concur. PARKER, C.J., Concurs specially.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Miranda C. Amador appeals the sentence imposed pursuant to a plea agreement and a substantial assistance contract. We affirm the sentence, but write to point out that the contract entered into between Amador and the State is woefully inadequate.

The substantial assistance contract in question was vague and did not delineate the actions to be performed by Amador in order to fulfill the requirements of the agreement in light of the almost twenty-year history of “substantial assistance legislation.” See § 893.35(3), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1980). The transcript of the plea colloquy does nothing to demonstrate how the contract was to be completed. In order to ensure that there are no misunderstandings between the parties, the terms of the agreement should be clearly [405]*405set forth in the contract or discussed at the plea hearing. As suggested in Timothee v. State, 721 So.2d 776, 777 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), the court may take measures to protect the confidentiality of the agreement.

Affirmed.

CAMPBELL and SALCINES,, JJ., Concur. PARKER, C.J., Concurs specially.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

732 So. 2d 404, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 4655, 1999 WL 211899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amador-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack