Schmidt v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Schmidt v. State

464 So. 2d 1302, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 705, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12908

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 12, 1985

DocketNo. 83-866

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 464 So. 2d 1302 (Schmidt 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

Schmidt v. State, 464 So. 2d 1302, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 705, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12908 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal conducted pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), in a probation revocation proceeding. After the public defender filed a memorandum brief, this court afforded Dieter Schmidt the opportunity to file additional briefs in this appeal. He has done so, the state filed a response and we now affirm as to all issues raised except the issue of the trial court’s retention of jurisdiction.

Appellant, pro se, raises several points on appeal, only one of which has merit. He asserts that he was not told, at the time he entered his plea of nolo contendere, that the trial court could retain jurisdiction over the first one-third of his sentence. The state concedes this point. Therefore, under State v. Green, 421 So.2d 508 (Fla.1982), we are compelled to remand this cause to the trial court so that it may either strike the retention of jurisdiction, allowing the original plea to stand, or allow appellant to withdraw his nolo plea. Mrozowski v. State, 444 So.2d 587 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Fowler v. State, 443 So.2d 125 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Crawford v. State, 438 So.2d 974 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).

Remanded with directions.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal conducted pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), in a probation revocation proceeding. After the public defender filed a memorandum brief, this court afforded Dieter Schmidt the opportunity to file additional briefs in this appeal. He has done so, the state filed a response and we now affirm as to all issues raised except the issue of the trial court’s retention of jurisdiction.

Appellant, pro se, raises several points on appeal, only one of which has merit. He asserts that he was not told, at the time he entered his plea of nolo contendere, that the trial court could retain jurisdiction over the first one-third of his sentence. The state concedes this point. Therefore, under State v. Green, 421 So.2d 508 (Fla.1982), we are compelled to remand this cause to the trial court so that it may either strike the retention of jurisdiction, allowing the original plea to stand, or allow appellant to withdraw his nolo plea. Mrozowski v. State, 444 So.2d 587 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Fowler v. State, 443 So.2d 125 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Crawford v. State, 438 So.2d 974 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).

Remanded with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

464 So. 2d 1302, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 705, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12908, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schmidt-v-state-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack