KAREN JO CHAMBERS, 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.
Court affirmed probation violation finding but allowed appellant to withdraw her guilty plea on remand, holding that a trial court cannot adopt an arbitrary policy of denying pre-hearing release to all probation violatees regardless of circumstances.
A trial court may not refuse to consider pre-hearing release as a matter of blanket policy and must consider the individual circumstances of each probation violation case.
[1] A trial court may not adopt an arbitrary blanket policy of denying pre-hearing release to all probation violatees but must consider the nature and circumstances of each a…
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 intelligence“A trial court may not refuse to consider pre-hearing release as a matter of "policy."”
Court's statement of the governing legal principle regarding pre-hearing release decisions in probation violation cases.
Appellant was charged with violating probation. The trial court had an arbitrary policy of refusing pre-hearing release to all persons charged with pr…
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 Withdrawal Of Guilty Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order finding that appellant violated the terms of her probation, adjudicating her guilty of the underlying offense, and placing her on community control. Upon examination of the record it is apparent that appellant’s admission of guilt to the violation was made because the trial court had an arbitrary policy of refusing prehearing release to persons charged with a violation of probation regardless of the nature or circumstances of the alleged violation or any other relevant considerations. A trial court may not refuse to consider pre-hearing release as a matter of “policy.” Glosson v. Solomon, 490 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).
The appellant stated that she feared the loss of her job if she remained incarcerated pending a probation violation hearing, and agreed to a guilty plea based upon the trial court’s indication that that was the only way she could be released before the hearing. The trial court also required that she agree to be adjudicated guilty of the underlying offense. The appellant has completed her community control but seeks an opportunity to set aside her conviction. While we are sympathetic to appellant’s position, we do not believe it appropriate for such a plea to be attacked on direct appeal. Accordingly, we affirm, but we do so without prejudice to the appellant to request the trial court to allow her to withdraw her plea of guilty to the probation violation.
ANSTEAD, LETTS and DELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McKELVIN v. State, 497 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…ilty plea cannot be raised on direct appeal unless appellant has first made a motion to withdraw the plea in the trial court. Counts v. State, 376 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Thomason v. State, 480 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Chambers v. State, 491 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). Both issues, however, may properly be raised in a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. We therefore affirm the judgment and sentence, but do so without prejudice to appellant’s raising these two iss…
-
Lawyer v. Crawford, 517 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…ld or should not be allowed upon consideration of the entire factual background. See Glosson v. Solomon, 490 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (improper to deny pre-probation hearing release in every case as matter of policy); see also Chambers v. State, 491 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (same). Accordingly, the instant petition for ha-beas corpus is treated as one for mandamus. We grant the writ and direct the trial court forthwith to hear, consider and determine the petitioner’s application for pre-trial relea…
Authorities Cited
- Glosson v. The Honorable Harold Solomon, 490 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)