ODOL v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

ODOL v. State

64 So. 3d 130, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 8110, 2011 WL 2154333

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 2, 2011

Docket1D10-5373

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 64 So. 3d 130 (ODOL 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

ODOL v. State, 64 So. 3d 130, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 8110, 2011 WL 2154333 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Walter Joseph Odol, challenges his sentence on double jeopardy grounds. On May 20, 2010, Appellant entered into a negotiated plea agreement whereby he agreed to be sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment and the court agreed that he did not have to report to the jail until June 21, 2010. At the conelu *131 sion of the plea hearing, the trial court orally pronounced Appellant’s sentence and the court reduced the sentence to writing on the same day. When Appellant failed to appear at the appointed time, the court vacated Appellant’s 15-month sentence and imposed a BO-month sentence over defense counsel’s objections. When the trial court orally pronounced the 15-month sentence, jeopardy attached and the trial court was precluded from imposing the increased sentence. Ingraham v. State, 842 So.2d 954, 955 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). This is not a case where the court deferred sentencing until the defendant returned from furlough. See Quarterman v. State, 527 So.2d 1380, 1381 (Fla.1988). Nor is it a ease where the State moved to vacate the plea pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(g). See Metellus v. State, 900 So.2d 491, 493-94 (Fla. 2005). We, therefore reverse Appellant’s 30-month sentence and remand with directions to impose the 15-month sentence contemplated by the plea agreement.

REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.

DAVIS, ROBERTS, and ROWE, JJ„ concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Walter Joseph Odol, challenges his sentence on double jeopardy grounds. On May 20, 2010, Appellant entered into a negotiated plea agreement whereby he agreed to be sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment and the court agreed that he did not have to report to the jail until June 21, 2010. At the conelu *131 sion of the plea hearing, the trial court orally pronounced Appellant’s sentence and the court reduced the sentence to writing on the same day. When Appellant failed to appear at the appointed time, the court vacated Appellant’s 15-month sentence and imposed a BO-month sentence over defense counsel’s objections. When the trial court orally pronounced the 15-month sentence, jeopardy attached and the trial court was precluded from imposing the increased sentence. Ingraham v. State, 842 So.2d 954, 955 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). This is not a case where the court deferred sentencing until the defendant returned from furlough. See Quarterman v. State, 527 So.2d 1380, 1381 (Fla.1988). Nor is it a ease where the State moved to vacate the plea pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(g). See Metellus v. State, 900 So.2d 491, 493-94 (Fla. 2005). We, therefore reverse Appellant’s 30-month sentence and remand with directions to impose the 15-month sentence contemplated by the plea agreement.

REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.

DAVIS, ROBERTS, and ROWE, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 So. 3d 130, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 8110, 2011 WL 2154333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/odol-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack