Bolger v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bolger v. State

587 So. 2d 1184, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 10465, 1991 WL 213274

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 24, 1991

DocketNo. 91-726

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 587 So. 2d 1184 (Bolger 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

Bolger v. State, 587 So. 2d 1184, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 10465, 1991 WL 213274 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Brian Edward Bolger appeals his sentences for burglary of a structure and sexual battery with slight force. Pursuant to the terms of his plea agreement, Bolger pled guilty to both charges in exchange for the State’s recommendation of concurrent sentences. The written plea agreement was recognized by the trial judge who accepted Bolger’s guilty plea. Just prior to sentencing before a different judge, the State apprised Bolger that the portion of the agreement that indicated concurrent sentences would be imposed rather than consecutive was based on a misunderstanding between the victim and the State. Bol-ger immediately sought to withdraw his plea. The sentencing judge denied Bol-ger’s motion, ruling that the two sentences would run consecutively.

When a sentencing judge announces that he or she will not be bound by the terms of a plea agreement, the judge must provide the defendant with an opportunity to withdraw his plea. King v. State, 578 So.2d 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Accordingly, Bolger’s sentence is reversed and the cause is remanded with instructions to allow Bolger an opportunity to withdraw his plea.

REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.

GOSHORN, C.J., and HARRIS and PETERSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Brian Edward Bolger appeals his sentences for burglary of a structure and sexual battery with slight force. Pursuant to the terms of his plea agreement, Bolger pled guilty to both charges in exchange for the State’s recommendation of concurrent sentences. The written plea agreement was recognized by the trial judge who accepted Bolger’s guilty plea. Just prior to sentencing before a different judge, the State apprised Bolger that the portion of the agreement that indicated concurrent sentences would be imposed rather than consecutive was based on a misunderstanding between the victim and the State. Bol-ger immediately sought to withdraw his plea. The sentencing judge denied Bol-ger’s motion, ruling that the two sentences would run consecutively.

When a sentencing judge announces that he or she will not be bound by the terms of a plea agreement, the judge must provide the defendant with an opportunity to withdraw his plea. King v. State, 578 So.2d 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Accordingly, Bolger’s sentence is reversed and the cause is remanded with instructions to allow Bolger an opportunity to withdraw his plea.

REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.

GOSHORN, C.J., and HARRIS and PETERSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

587 So. 2d 1184, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 10465, 1991 WL 213274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bolger-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack