Parks v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Parks v. State

863 So. 2d 382, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 19195, 2003 WL 22956414

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 17, 2003·No. No. 3D03-343·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We conclude that the trial court correctly found, after a full evidentiary hearing, that appellant failed to comply with the terms of his plea agreement, thus the trial court properly vacated his sentence and resentenced him. McCoy v. State, 599 So.2d 645 (Fla.1992). The plea agreement required the appellant to testify against his co-defendant, identifying him as the shooter in a homicide prosecution. The testimony was to be consistent with his prior sworn statement. However, at his deposition, appellant claimed that he could not remember most of the information contained in his prior sworn statement, and would not identify the co-defendant as the shooter. We therefore affirm.

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

PER CURIAM.

We conclude that the trial court correctly found, after a full evidentiary hearing, that appellant failed to comply with the terms of his plea agreement, thus the trial court properly vacated his sentence and resentenced him. McCoy v. State, 599 So.2d 645 (Fla.1992). The plea agreement required the appellant to testify against his co-defendant, identifying him as the shooter in a homicide prosecution. The testimony was to be consistent with his prior sworn statement. However, at his deposition, appellant claimed that he could not remember most of the information contained in his prior sworn statement, and would not identify the co-defendant as the shooter. We therefore affirm.

Parks v. State, 863 So. 2d 382, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 19195, 2003 WL 22956414 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

863 So. 2d 382 (Parks v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related