D.D.W. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

D.D.W. v. State

686 So. 2d 747, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 89, 1997 WL 7152

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 10, 1997

DocketNo. 95-01691

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 686 So. 2d 747 (D.D.W. 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

D.D.W. v. State, 686 So. 2d 747, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 89, 1997 WL 7152 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the denial of his motion to withdraw his no contest plea. We reverse because the trial court abused its discretion by not allowing appellant to withdraw his plea when the trial court determined it could not sentence appellant in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement.

Appellant pleaded no contest to possession of cocaine pursuant to a plea agreement under which he would be sentenced to a level four commitment. The court was fully advised of the conditions of the plea agreement, but nevertheless sentenced appellant to a level six commitment. The court then denied appellant’s motion to withdraw the plea, find-[748]*748mg the motion untimely since it followed oral pronouncement of the sentence.

Whether a defendant should be permitted to withdraw a plea is a question addressed to the discretion of the trial court; however, the court’s discretion is constráined by the interests of justice. Watson v. State, 667 So.2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). When a trial judge cannot honor the conditions of a plea agreement, the judge must affirmatively offer the defendant an opportunity to withdraw the plea. Goins v. State, 672 So.2d 30 (Fla.1996); Rodriguez v. State, 610 So.2d 476 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Kiefer v. State, 295 So.2d 688 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). A motion to withdraw a plea need not be made to preserve the issue for appeal. Goins, 672 So.2d at 32.

In the instant case, appellant has demonstrated manifest injustice and an abuse of discretion. He was sentenced to a commitment level greater than that contemplated by the plea agreement without being given the opportunity to withdraw his plea. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that appellant knowingly and intelligently pleaded no contest.¹

Therefore, we reverse and remand with instructions to give appellant an opportunity to withdraw his plea.

THREADGILL, C.J., and ALTENBERND and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the denial of his motion to withdraw his no contest plea. We reverse because the trial court abused its discretion by not allowing appellant to withdraw his plea when the trial court determined it could not sentence appellant in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement.

Appellant pleaded no contest to possession of cocaine pursuant to a plea agreement under which he would be sentenced to a level four commitment. The court was fully advised of the conditions of the plea agreement, but nevertheless sentenced appellant to a level six commitment. The court then denied appellant’s motion to withdraw the plea, find-[748]*748mg the motion untimely since it followed oral pronouncement of the sentence.

Whether a defendant should be permitted to withdraw a plea is a question addressed to the discretion of the trial court; however, the court’s discretion is constráined by the interests of justice. Watson v. State, 667 So.2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). When a trial judge cannot honor the conditions of a plea agreement, the judge must affirmatively offer the defendant an opportunity to withdraw the plea. Goins v. State, 672 So.2d 30 (Fla.1996); Rodriguez v. State, 610 So.2d 476 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Kiefer v. State, 295 So.2d 688 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). A motion to withdraw a plea need not be made to preserve the issue for appeal. Goins, 672 So.2d at 32.

In the instant case, appellant has demonstrated manifest injustice and an abuse of discretion. He was sentenced to a commitment level greater than that contemplated by the plea agreement without being given the opportunity to withdraw his plea. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that appellant knowingly and intelligently pleaded no contest.¹

Therefore, we reverse and remand with instructions to give appellant an opportunity to withdraw his plea.

THREADGILL, C.J., and ALTENBERND and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

686 So. 2d 747, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 89, 1997 WL 7152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ddw-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack