Chambers v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Chambers v. State

491 So. 2d 309, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1519, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8733

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 9, 1986

DocketNo. 85-971

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 491 So. 2d 309 (Chambers 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

Chambers v. State, 491 So. 2d 309, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1519, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8733 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order finding that appellant violated the terms of her probation, adjudicating her guilty of the underlying offense, and placing her on community control. Upon examination of the record it is apparent that appellant’s admission of guilt to the violation was made because the trial court had an arbitrary policy of refusing prehearing release to persons charged with a violation of probation regardless of the nature or circumstances of the alleged violation or any other relevant considerations. A trial court may not refuse to consider pre-hearing release as a matter of “policy.” Glosson v. Solomon, 490 So.2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).

The appellant stated that she feared the loss of her job if she remained incarcerated pending a probation violation hearing, and agreed to a guilty plea based upon the trial court’s indication that that was the only way she could be released before the hearing. The trial court also required that she agree to be adjudicated guilty of the underlying offense. The appellant has completed her community control but seeks an opportunity to set aside her conviction. While we are sympathetic to appellant’s position, we do not believe it appropriate for such a plea to be attacked on direct appeal. Accordingly, we affirm, but we do so without prejudice to the appellant to request the trial court to allow her to withdraw her plea of guilty to the probation violation.

ANSTEAD, LETTS and DELL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order finding that appellant violated the terms of her probation, adjudicating her guilty of the underlying offense, and placing her on community control. Upon examination of the record it is apparent that appellant’s admission of guilt to the violation was made because the trial court had an arbitrary policy of refusing prehearing release to persons charged with a violation of probation regardless of the nature or circumstances of the alleged violation or any other relevant considerations. A trial court may not refuse to consider pre-hearing release as a matter of “policy.” Glosson v. Solomon, 490 So.2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).

The appellant stated that she feared the loss of her job if she remained incarcerated pending a probation violation hearing, and agreed to a guilty plea based upon the trial court’s indication that that was the only way she could be released before the hearing. The trial court also required that she agree to be adjudicated guilty of the underlying offense. The appellant has completed her community control but seeks an opportunity to set aside her conviction. While we are sympathetic to appellant’s position, we do not believe it appropriate for such a plea to be attacked on direct appeal. Accordingly, we affirm, but we do so without prejudice to the appellant to request the trial court to allow her to withdraw her plea of guilty to the probation violation.

ANSTEAD, LETTS and DELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

491 So. 2d 309, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1519, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 8733, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chambers-v-state-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack