McMillan v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McMillan v. State

701 So. 2d 1214, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 13301, 1997 WL 731794

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 26, 1997

DocketNo. 97-3103

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 701 So. 2d 1214 (McMillan 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

McMillan v. State, 701 So. 2d 1214, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 13301, 1997 WL 731794 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

James McMillan appeals from the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief. We affirm.

In 1993, McMillan pled nolo contendere to charges of sexual battery and burglary. In exchange for his plea, he was sentenced to community control. In 1994, defendant violated the terms of his community control and was sentenced to fifteen years in prison. He filed a motion for postconviction relief, arguing that the court which accepted his initial plea was precluded, under section 948.01(10), Florida Statutes (1991), from placing him on community control. He sought release on the basis that his community control — precluded by statute — could not be revoked, as it had been imposed unlawfully. We reject his claim.

McMillan accepted the terms of an extremely beneficial plea agreement, and could not live up to those generous terms. He is now estopped from challenging that agreement.

[Ojur courts have held that sentences and other judicial actions which deviate from statutory and even constitutional requirements to the potential benefit of the defendant and to which he agreed may not be the subject of a successful challenge brought only after he has failed to carry any burden imposed upon him.

Madrigal v. State, 545 So.2d 392, 394 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); see also King v. State, 373 So.2d 78, 79 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)(‘We hold that the [1215]*1215defendant has waived his right to question the legality of a probation, which he has enjoyed and violated.”), cert. denied, 383 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980).

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM.

James McMillan appeals from the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief. We affirm.

In 1993, McMillan pled nolo contendere to charges of sexual battery and burglary. In exchange for his plea, he was sentenced to community control. In 1994, defendant violated the terms of his community control and was sentenced to fifteen years in prison. He filed a motion for postconviction relief, arguing that the court which accepted his initial plea was precluded, under section 948.01(10), Florida Statutes (1991), from placing him on community control. He sought release on the basis that his community control — precluded by statute — could not be revoked, as it had been imposed unlawfully. We reject his claim.

McMillan accepted the terms of an extremely beneficial plea agreement, and could not live up to those generous terms. He is now estopped from challenging that agreement.

[Ojur courts have held that sentences and other judicial actions which deviate from statutory and even constitutional requirements to the potential benefit of the defendant and to which he agreed may not be the subject of a successful challenge brought only after he has failed to carry any burden imposed upon him.

Madrigal v. State, 545 So.2d 392, 394 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); see also King v. State, 373 So.2d 78, 79 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)(‘We hold that the [1215]*1215defendant has waived his right to question the legality of a probation, which he has enjoyed and violated.”), cert. denied, 383 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980).

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

701 So. 2d 1214, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 13301, 1997 WL 731794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcmillan-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack