JOHN MEDINA, 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.
The court held that the appellant failed to preserve the issue of the sentence violating the plea agreement by not raising it in the trial court first.
Appellant pleaded guilty under an agreement where the maximum incarceration would be one year. He received a three-year sentence with one year to serv…
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 Split Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
Appellant entered a guilty plea pursuant to a plea agreement wherein the State agreed, with the trial court’s approval, that “the maximum period of incarceration that [appellant] would face would be one year under the agreement.” Subsequently, appellant was given a true split sentence as authorized by section 948.01(4), Florida Statutes (1981), committing him to the custody of the Department of Corrections for a term of three years, but providing that, after serving one year in prison, the imposition of the remainder of the sentence imposed be stayed and withheld and appellant be placed on probation for a period of two years. Appellant directly appeals from the sentence, arguing that the sentence imposed violates the plea agreement.
Appellant made no objection at the time of the imposition of sentencing, nor has he made a motion to reduce the sentence on the ground that it violated the plea agreement 1 or otherwise given the trial court an opportunity to consider if the plea agreement was ambiguous as stated and, if so, what the intent of the parties was with respect to the possibility of up to two additional years of confinement in the event of a violation of probation during the two year period of probation. Any question about these matters should be first raised in the trial court. If appellant is aggrieved by the trial court’s construction of the plea agreement, appellant can move the court to per 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Blaine Everett v. State, 442 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)…ore affirmed without prejudice to the filing of an appropriate motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. McIntyre v. State, 427 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Gaskins v. State, 415 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Medina v. State, 411 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Fuller v. State, 406 So. 2d 1212 (Fla.3d DCA 1981). See Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701 (Fla.1978). AFFIRMED. BOARDMAN, A.C.J,, and GRIMES, J., concur.…
-
Artis Lee Benton v. State, 442 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)…Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In such a motion, Benton may attack infirmities in his sentencing in no. 83-1225. McIntyre v. State, 427 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Gaskins v. State, 415 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Medina v. State, 411 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Fuller v. State, 406 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). See Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701 (Fla.1978). AFFIRMED. BOARDMAN, A.C.J., and GRIMES, J., concur.…
-
McINTYRE v. State, 427 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…ess and knowledgeability of the plea, Viars v. State, 415 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)— may not be raised on this direct appeal. Robinson v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla.1979); Ratushinak v. State, 425 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Medina v. State, 411 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Griffin v. State, 403 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). The judgment and sentences are therefore affirmed without prejudice to the filing of an appropriate motion under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. Ratushinak v. State, supra; Griffin v. S…
Authorities Cited
- Gissendanner v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1979)
- Robinson v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1979)
- ORR v. State, 402 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)