State v. Odum

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Odum

763 So. 2d 1067, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 10101, 1999 WL 543232

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 28, 1999

DocketNo. 98-2977

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 763 So. 2d 1067 (State v. Odum) 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. Odum, 763 So. 2d 1067, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 10101, 1999 WL 543232 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

We grant appellee’s motion for rehearing, withdraw our previous opinion, and substitute the following opinion.

In this case the trial court accepted the defendant’s pleas of guilty to the crimes charged in two informations. The state objected to “the plea offer as given by the court.” As we have previously held, a trial court may accept a plea to crimes as charged in an information over the state’s objection. See State v. Warner, 721 So.2d 767 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), review granted, 732 So.2d 328 (Fla.1999). This is not a case involving a plea to reduced charges, to which the state must consent under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(h). Cf. State v. Vesquez, 755 So.2d 674 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). The state failed to preserve its objections to the sentences imposed.

AFFIRMED.

KLEIN, GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

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

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

We grant appellee’s motion for rehearing, withdraw our previous opinion, and substitute the following opinion.

In this case the trial court accepted the defendant’s pleas of guilty to the crimes charged in two informations. The state objected to “the plea offer as given by the court.” As we have previously held, a trial court may accept a plea to crimes as charged in an information over the state’s objection. See State v. Warner, 721 So.2d 767 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), review granted, 732 So.2d 328 (Fla.1999). This is not a case involving a plea to reduced charges, to which the state must consent under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(h). Cf. State v. Vesquez, 755 So.2d 674 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). The state failed to preserve its objections to the sentences imposed.

AFFIRMED.

KLEIN, GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

763 So. 2d 1067, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 10101, 1999 WL 543232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-odum-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack