Parks v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Parks v. State

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

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 17, 2003

DocketNo. 3D03-343

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 863 So. 2d 382 (Parks 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

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

863 So. 2d 382, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 19195, 2003 WL 22956414, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parks-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack