STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ENSO LILLO, 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 trial court erred in withholding adjudication of guilt for bookmaking, as the relevant statute prohibits withholding adjudication for such convictions.
The defendant pleaded nolo contendere to bookmaking charges, with the understanding that adjudication would be withheld. The state objected, but the t…
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 Withholding Adjudication Of Guilt cases and more on FLexlaw
SANDERLIN, Judge.
In this appeal, the state contends that the trial court erred in withholding adjudication of guilt from the defendant’s judgment. We agree and reverse.
The defendant was charged with two counts of bookmaking, in violation of section 849.25, Florida Statutes (1985). He pleaded nolo contendere to the charges, with the understanding that adjudication would be withheld. The state objected, arguing that section 849.25(2) required an adjudication of guilt. Nevertheless, the trial court accepted the defendant’s plea, placed him on community control, and withheld adjudication of guilt.
Section 849.25(2) provides in pertinent part:
Notwithstanding the provisions of s. 948.01, any person convicted under the provisions of this subsection shall not have adjudication of guilt suspended, deferred, or withheld.
It is clear that the term “convicted” as used in the statute also encompasses a plea of nolo contendere.
Accordingly, we reverse the defendant’s judgment, and remand for further proceedings where the defendant shall be given the opportunity to withdraw his plea.
RYDER, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harrison v. State, 523 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…t charge. Fasenmyer v. State, 457 So. 2d 1361 (Fla.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1035, 105 S.Ct. 1407, 84 L.Ed.2d 796 (1985). The murder conviction must instead be treated only as a prior offense in the guidelines calculation, see Peterson v. State, 506 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), which in turn, must be based upon the guidelines in effect at the time of the offense, Miller v. Florida, — U.S.-, 107 S.Ct. 2446, 96 L.Ed.2d 351 (1987), with the burglary charge treated as the primary offense. In making that co…
-
Lopez v. State, 509 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…eportation purposes between a guilty and a nolo plea, United States v. Dasher, 51 F.Supp. 805 (E.D.Pa. 1943), nor do Florida courts recognize a distinction for purposes other than reservation of the right to appeal a prior order, see State v. Lillo, 506 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) ("convicted” as used in bookmaking statute includes nolo plea); Russell v. State, 233 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 4th DCA [*1336] 1970) (nolo plea construed same as guilty plea for all practical purposes). . Florida Rule of Criminal Procedu…
-
Kilpatrick v. State, 516 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…s no evidence presented to show that he had committed the petit thefts. Because the appellant pled guilty to the charges of petit theft in the amended affidavit, it was not necessary that evidence of their commission be presented. Peterson v. State, 506 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). [*58] The appellant asserts as his last argument that he was not provided advance notice and an opportunity to be heard on the imposition of court costs pursuant to sections 960.20 and 943.25, Florida Statutes (1985), as is requi…