DEXTER HINTON, 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 issues regarding the improper taking of pleas are not subject to direct appeal without a prior motion to withdraw them, but a specific probation condition was improper.
Defendant pleaded guilty to burglary and robbery, then moved to withdraw his pleas without stated reasons. He appealed his convictions and sentences, …
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 Felon In Possession Of A Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
OTT, Chief Judge.
Dexter Hinton appeals from plea-based convictions of burglary with an assault and two counts of robbery.
Prior to sentencing, defendant moved to withdraw his pleas. Defendant offered no reasons in support of this motion. We find no error in the lower court’s denial of appellant’s motion to withdraw the pleas. See Baker v. State, 408 So. 2d 686, 687 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982).
In this appeal, appellant contends that the pleas were improperly taken and should have been withdrawn because insufficient factual bases were presented and he was not informed of the correct maximum potential sentence on the burglary charge. These issues raise errors allegedly occurring contemporaneously with entry of the pleas and, as such, are not subject to direct appeal in the absence of an appropriate motion to withdraw the pleas filed in the lower court. See Robinson v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla.1979), and Counts v. State, 376 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).
Appellant argues that certain conditions of his probation are improper. We agree that standard condition 4, prohibiting the possession, carrying, or use of weapons or firearms without prior consent of his probation officer, should be stricken since appellant is a convicted felon. See Smith v. State, 396 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). However, we find no merit to the remaining objections to the other conditions of probation.
Accordingly, condition 4 is hereby STRICKEN. In all other respects, appellant’s convictions, sentences, and conditions of probation as amended are AFFIRMED.
BOARDMAN and SCHEB, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Beckner v. State, 604 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…requires Beckner to obtain the consent of his probation officer to possess a firearm. As a convicted felon, Beck-ner has, at least for the present, forfeited his right to own and possess a firearm. This condition, too, is stricken. Hinton v. State, 439 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Finally, we find merit in Beckner’s challenge to the public defender’s fee imposed by the trial court without affording Beckner the opportunity to object to the amount. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.720(d)(1). We strike the fee without p…
-
Houston v. State, 701 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…eaknesses in Smith, this court continued to adhere to its holding. See e.g., Pagan v. State, 637 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Mercer v. State, 604 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Beckner v. State, 604 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Hinton v. State, 439 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). In Jennings v. State, 645 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), which involved earlier condition four, Judge Campbell attempted to narrow the remedy in Smith. Noting that earlier condition four implied that a probation officer could gr…
Authorities Cited
- Gissendanner v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1979)
- Robinson v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1979)
- Counts v. State, 376 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Cleveland Plummer v. Cindy Copeland & the State of Fla., 408 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Baker v. State, 408 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Argento v. State, 396 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)