RONALD PHILLIP ORR, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Ronald Orr pleaded guilty to multiple charges based on a plea agreement requiring concurrent sentences with a maximum five-year exposure. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences instead, violating the agreement. The appellate court reversed and remanded, requiring the trial court to either impose concurrent sentences as agreed or allow Orr to withdraw his plea.
The trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences violated the plea agreement. The court must vacate the consecutive sentences and either impose concurrent sentences as agreed or notify Orr of its intention to impose consecutive sentences and allow him to withdraw his plea.
[1] A trial court errs by imposing consecutive sentences in violation of a plea agreement without first notifying the defendant and allowing the defendant to withdraw their p…
[2] A trial court's concurrence in a plea agreement, as indicated by its statements during a plea hearing, binds the court to the terms of that agreement.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the state has agreed that all four or [sic] the third to be [sic] felonies that he is going to plead guilty to will be considered concurrent. In other words his maximum exposure would be five years.”
Defense counsel's statement of the plea agreement terms regarding concurrent sentences
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOrr was charged in four separate informations with multiple counts of various crimes. At the plea hearing, Orr pleaded guilty to some charges and guil…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Opportunity To Withdraw Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
Appellant Orr was charged in four separate informations with multiple counts of various crimes.1 At his plea hearing, Orr pled guilty as charged to some of the charges and guilty to lesser includeds on some of the charges in return for the state nolle pressing some of the other charges.
Further, at the plea hearing, defense counsel stated that “the state has agreed that all four or [sic] the third to be [sic] felonies that he is going to plead guilty to will be considered concurrent. In other words his maximum exposure would be five years.” The state attorney stated that “the state would not oppose a five-year concurrent cap on any sentence given.” During its questioning of Orr, the trial court stated:
Do you know you could get under the terms of the negotiations you could get up to twenty years ... under the terms of the negotiations you can get five years in the state prison system for this offense, these offenses. Do you understand that?
The trial court subsequently sentenced Orr to five years imprisonment in one of the cases and five years on probation in the other three cases, with all of the sentences running consecutively.
Orr filed a motion to reduce the sentences on the grounds that they violated the plea agreement. The trial court denied the motion, and Orr has appealed.2
The statements made by the defense counsel, the state attorney, and the trial court show that they all concurred with the plea agreement that Orr was to receive concurrent sentences with a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. In light of the trial court’s concurrence in that plea agreement, it was error for the trial court to sentence Orr to consecutive sentences without first notifying Orr that the trial court was going to do so and allowing Orr the opportunity to withdraw his plea. Reynolds v. State, 339 So. 2d 714 (Fla.2d DCA 1976); Barker v. State, 259 So. 2d 200 (Fla.2d DCA 1972).
Accordingly, we direct the trial court to vacate the present consecutive sentences and to either impose concurrent sentences or else notify Orr of the court’s intention to impose consecutive sentences and give Orr the opportunity to withdraw his plea.
REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., and SHARP, JJ., concur. . Circuit court case numbers 80-52-CFA, 80-113-CFA, 80-114-CFA, and 80-205-CFA. . Initially, the notice of appeal was filed prematurely. However, the sentences being attacked have now been rendered and therefore the appeal has matured. Williams v. State, 324 So. 2d 74 (Fla.1975); Committee Note to Fla.R.App.P. 9.110(h).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gumbiner v. State, 429 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)…use of the results of a pre-sentence investigation. Nevertheless, it was still under a duty to offer him the opportunity to withdraw the plea of no contest to the charge in case number 81-2264 before imposing consecutive sentences. See Orr v. State, 402 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Accordingly, we vacate the consecutive sentences and remand with directions that the court either impose concurrent sentences or notify appellant of its intention to impose consecutive sentences and allow him the opportunity t…
-
Medina v. State, 411 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…pellant can move the court to per [*324] mit him to withdraw his plea. If appellant is aggrieved by the trial court’s ruling on his motion to withdraw his plea, he can appeal to this court. Robinson v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla.1979); Orr v. State, 402 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). AFFIRMED. DAUKSCH, C. J., and FRANK D. UP-CHURCH, Jr., J., concur. . See, for example, Orr v. State, 402 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), where such a motion was made.…1 / 2
-
Grice v. State, 428 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…direct that this cause be remanded to the trial court. Grice shall be granted the opportunity of withdrawing his guilty plea. Should he do so, the State shall have the option of trying him on the original charge of first degree murder. Orr v. State, 402 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). The trial court shall advise him of that fact at the hearing on his motion to withdraw, and prior to the hearing it shall advise Grice of his right to be represented by counsel. MOTION FOR REHEARING GRANTED; AND CASE REMANDED.…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 324 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 1975)
- Barker v. State, 259 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)
- Reynolds v. State, 339 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)