STEVEN M. BISHOP, 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.
Bishop appealed the summary denial of his post-conviction motion challenging his sentence as inconsistent with his plea bargain. The court had previously reduced his incarceration term but left the probationary period unchanged. The appellate court reversed, holding that the prior order was not res judicata on the probation issue and required an evidentiary hearing to determine the full scope of the plea bargain.
The July 21, 1980 order was not res judicata on the probation issue because it only addressed incarceration and did not resolve Bishop's challenge to the probationary period. The trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the exact nature of the plea bargain and whether the sentence is consistent with it. If the bargain did not contemplate a probationary period, the court should vacate the probation requirement.
[1] A prior court order granting partial relief does not render res judicata a subsequent motion raising distinct issues not addressed by the prior order.
[2] A court should hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the exact nature of a plea bargain and whether the imposed sentence is consistent with that bargain.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“it was not res judicata on the probation issue”
Establishes that the prior order reducing incarceration did not finally resolve the probation challenge
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBishop pled nolo contendere on June 6, 1979, pursuant to an alleged plea bargain requiring only one year of incarceration. He was initially sentenced …
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 Motion To Correct Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1063] PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from the summary denial of a motion for post-conviction relief.
According to the motion, on June 6, 1979, the court sentenced appellant to eighteen months in prison followed by three and one half years on probation. Appellant later moved to correct the sentence contending that he had pled nolo contendere pursuant to a plea bargain under which he was only supposed to serve one year in prison. The court responded by entering an order, dated July 21, 1980, reducing the incarceration to one year, followed by four years probation. Subsequently, appellant filed the motion under consideration here asserting once again that his sentence violated the plea bargain. The court denied this motion without a hearing, noting that it was “res judicata by relief granted 21 July 80.”
The order of July 21, 1980, brought the term of incarceration into line with the alleged plea bargain, but it did not address appellant’s contention with respect to the probationary period extending beyond his incarceration. Hence, it was not res judicata on the probation issue. We therefore reverse the present order and direct the court to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the exact nature of the plea bargain and whether the sentence is consistent with that bargain. While under ordinary circumstances a plea bargain is not specifically enforceable, it is now too late to merely offer appellant the right to withdraw his plea. Cf. Odom v. State, 310 So. 2d 770 (Fla.2d DCA 1975), wherein the court held that specific performance of a plea bargain is not available in the absence of a showing of irrevocable prejudice to the defendant. Therefore, if the court determines that the bargain did not contemplate a probationary period, it should simply vacate the probation requirement.
GRIMES, A. C. J., and OTT and RYDER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Smith v. State, 310 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Odom v. State, 310 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)