Iturralde v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Iturralde v. State

816 So. 2d 1205, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 6892, 2002 WL 1021348

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 22, 2002

DocketNo. 3D99-3056

StatusPublished

This text of 816 So. 2d 1205 (Iturralde 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

Iturralde v. State, 816 So. 2d 1205, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 6892, 2002 WL 1021348 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Nestor Iturralde appeals a stay away order imposed as part of a split sentence imposed on him, pursuant to a plea bargain. After reviewing the transcript of the plea colloquy, we conclude that the stay away order was clearly spelled out as part of the plea bargain. Although defendant-appellant initially objected to that part of the proposed plea agreement, the transcript is clear that the defendant ultimately agreed to that provision, as well as the other terms of the plea agreement.

[1206]*1206Defendant relies on Lippman v. State, 633 So.2d 1061 (Fla.1994), but that case is distinguishable. There, a probation order had been entered and eight months later the trial court added additional conditions, without having found Lippman to be in violation of his probation. The court held that the addition of new conditions to an existing probation order was impermissible. Id. at 1064. The court pointed out, however, that “such conditions could have been included in the initial probationary order had circumstances required.Id. The Lippman decision does not apply here, because the stay away order was agreed to during the plea colloquy.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Nestor Iturralde appeals a stay away order imposed as part of a split sentence imposed on him, pursuant to a plea bargain. After reviewing the transcript of the plea colloquy, we conclude that the stay away order was clearly spelled out as part of the plea bargain. Although defendant-appellant initially objected to that part of the proposed plea agreement, the transcript is clear that the defendant ultimately agreed to that provision, as well as the other terms of the plea agreement.

[1206]*1206Defendant relies on Lippman v. State, 633 So.2d 1061 (Fla.1994), but that case is distinguishable. There, a probation order had been entered and eight months later the trial court added additional conditions, without having found Lippman to be in violation of his probation. The court held that the addition of new conditions to an existing probation order was impermissible. Id. at 1064. The court pointed out, however, that “such conditions could have been included in the initial probationary order had circumstances required.Id. The Lippman decision does not apply here, because the stay away order was agreed to during the plea colloquy.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

816 So. 2d 1205, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 6892, 2002 WL 1021348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/iturralde-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack