State v. De La Rosa

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. De La Rosa

414 So. 2d 26, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20137

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 18, 1982

DocketNo. 81-268

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 414 So. 2d 26 (State v. De La Rosa) 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

State v. De La Rosa, 414 So. 2d 26, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20137 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

NESBITT, Judge.

The defendant was charged, in Count I, with unlawful display of a firearm in the commission of a felony; to wit: armed robbery; and in Count II, with the commission of a robbery by the use of a firearm. The trial court accepted a somewhat unusual negotiated plea which involved the defendant unconditionally pleading guilty to Count I of the information, for which he was to receive a sentence of five years in the state penitentiary with credit for time served. As to Count II, on his plea of guilty, he was to receive a suspended sentence with the condition that in the event the withholding of sentence was reversed by a paramount court he might withdraw the plea and go to trial as to Count II.

Because Count II carried with it a minimum mandatory sentence of three years pursuant to Section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes (1979), Sowell v. State, 342 So.2d 969 (Fla.1977); State v. Sesler, 386 So.2d 293, 294 (Fla.2d DCA 1980), the entry of a suspended sentence for such an offense was patently erroneous. Consequently, the imposition of a suspended sentence as to Count II is reversed and remanded with directions to impose the appropriate sentence and without prejudice to the right of the defendant to withdraw his conditional plea within a reasonable time after the mandate has been issued.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

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

NESBITT, Judge.

The defendant was charged, in Count I, with unlawful display of a firearm in the commission of a felony; to wit: armed robbery; and in Count II, with the commission of a robbery by the use of a firearm. The trial court accepted a somewhat unusual negotiated plea which involved the defendant unconditionally pleading guilty to Count I of the information, for which he was to receive a sentence of five years in the state penitentiary with credit for time served. As to Count II, on his plea of guilty, he was to receive a suspended sentence with the condition that in the event the withholding of sentence was reversed by a paramount court he might withdraw the plea and go to trial as to Count II.

Because Count II carried with it a minimum mandatory sentence of three years pursuant to Section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes (1979), Sowell v. State, 342 So.2d 969 (Fla.1977); State v. Sesler, 386 So.2d 293, 294 (Fla.2d DCA 1980), the entry of a suspended sentence for such an offense was patently erroneous. Consequently, the imposition of a suspended sentence as to Count II is reversed and remanded with directions to impose the appropriate sentence and without prejudice to the right of the defendant to withdraw his conditional plea within a reasonable time after the mandate has been issued.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

414 So. 2d 26, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-de-la-rosa-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack