JAMES A. BROWN, A/K/A WILLIE CAMERON, 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.
Defendant's conviction affirmed but sentence remanded for correction where written sentence exceeded oral pronouncement and time-served credits were inconsistent.
A defendant cannot withdraw a guilty plea based on a sentence exceeding the plea bargain when a condition of the bargain was the defendant's appearance at sentencing, which the defendant failed to satisfy.
[1] A defendant who fails to appear at sentencing, a condition of the plea bargain, cannot withdraw the guilty plea based on a sentence exceeding the bargained-for sentence.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant was convicted of possession and delivery of cocaine and grand theft. The trial court orally imposed a five-year sentence on the grand theft …
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 Plea Bargain Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
LEHAN, Judge.
Defendant appeals from his convictions for possession and delivery of cocaine and grand theft.
Citing Nesmith v. State, 374 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), defendant argues that the trial court erred in failing to allow him to withdraw his guilty plea because his sentence was in excess of the sentence which was a part of his plea bargain. We disagree. Here, in contrast to Nesmith, it appears that a condition of the plea bargain to which defendant agreed was that he would appear at sentencing, which he did not do. See LaBaissiere v. State, 429 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).
Defendant also argues that while the trial court orally stated that defendant was to receive five years imprisonment on the grand theft charge, which is the legal maximum, the written sentence reflects a ten year sentence and that differing credits for time served were given in connection with concurrent sentences for the two offenses, citing Martin v. State, 452 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). The state concedes that at least clarification in those respects is appropriate. We agree with the state. We reverse and remand for the written sentence to be conformed to the oral pronouncement and to reflect the proper credit for time served on both concurrent sentences. See Yohn v. State, 461 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Martin v. State, 452 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Nesmith v. State, 374 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- LaBAISSIERE v. State, 429 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Yohn v. State, 461 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)