State v. Everett

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Everett

667 So. 2d 507, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 1053, 1996 WL 61356

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 14, 1996

DocketNo. 95-390

StatusPublished

This text of 667 So. 2d 507 (State v. Everett) 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. Everett, 667 So. 2d 507, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 1053, 1996 WL 61356 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

This case was initiated by the State of Florida filing an appeal of the trial court’s imposition of a sentence that was a “downward departure” from the guidelines. In furtherance of its argument, the State points out that the trial court erred in failing to provide sufficient reasons to justify the downward departure sentence of ten years. Based upon the appellee’s correct “Confession of Error”, wherein appellee acknowledges the trial court’s error, it is clear that the sentence imposed must be vacated.

Because the defendant entered his plea of nolo contendere upon the condition that he would receive a sentence of ten years, this cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to allow the defendant to withdraw his nolo contendere plea and, furthermore, to proceed to trial on the charges filed against him. State v. Lietzau, 651 So.2d 1314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); State v. Padron, 580 So.2d 903 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); State v. Grononger, 615 So.2d 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).

Reversed and remanded with directions.

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

CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

This case was initiated by the State of Florida filing an appeal of the trial court’s imposition of a sentence that was a “downward departure” from the guidelines. In furtherance of its argument, the State points out that the trial court erred in failing to provide sufficient reasons to justify the downward departure sentence of ten years. Based upon the appellee’s correct “Confession of Error”, wherein appellee acknowledges the trial court’s error, it is clear that the sentence imposed must be vacated.

Because the defendant entered his plea of nolo contendere upon the condition that he would receive a sentence of ten years, this cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to allow the defendant to withdraw his nolo contendere plea and, furthermore, to proceed to trial on the charges filed against him. State v. Lietzau, 651 So.2d 1314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); State v. Padron, 580 So.2d 903 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); State v. Grononger, 615 So.2d 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

667 So. 2d 507, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 1053, 1996 WL 61356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-everett-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack