VINCENT TANNIHILL, 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.
A public employee's claim of entitlement to continued employment, creating a property interest, must be based on state law and cannot override at-will employment status established by statute or clear contractual language. A reorganization eliminating a position does not constitute a termination requiring due process if no protected property interest exists.
Plaintiff, a department head, was terminated when his position was eliminated as part of a departmental reorganization. He claimed the county's Person…
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 Collateral Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Judge.
The defendant set forth in his appellate brief that he pleaded nolo contendere to second degree murder, reserving his right to appeal the trial court’s finding that he was competent to stand trial. The state’s brief agreed that the above is what took place and the judge stated at the end of the hearing that the defendant had a right to appeal. All of them were wrong. On the record, the defendant clearly pled guilty, and therefore, has no right to appeal. However, the defendant can seek collateral relief. Kiriluk v. State, 440 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). This does not, however, automatically mean that he may relitigate the question of his competency to stand trial, a matter resolved before any guilty plea was entered.
We, therefore, have no jurisdiction and this appeal is dismissed.
DISMISSED.
POLEN, J., and KANAREK, PAUL B., Associate Judge, concur. SUPPLEMENT TO OPINION OF JANUARY 24, 1990
The prior opinion issued on January 24, 1990, shall continue in full force and effect. In addition:
1. The judgment and sentence does not conform to the oral pronouncement in open court. The state concedes that the latter controls. Gonzales v. State, 488 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). The judgment and sentence must be corrected.
2. The state also concedes that attempted armed robbery is only a second degree felony. Williams v. State, 537 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Accordingly, the maximum period of imprisonment is fifteen years.
This cause is, therefore,
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN ACCORDANCE HEREWITH.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Traman D. Tory v. State, 686 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…at the written sentence should prevail. However, where a written order does not conform to the court’s oral pronouncement of judgment and sentence, the latter prevails. See Walls v. State, 596 So. 2d 811, 812 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Tannihill v. State, 559 So. 2d 608, 609 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Moreover, an oral pronouncement will most certainly prevail where the state concedes that the written sentence was in error. See Lester v. State, 563 So. 2d 178, 179 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). However, absent concession by the st…
-
Green v. State, 615 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…appellant’s sentences. Walsingham v. State, 602 So. 2d 1297 (Fla.1992); cf. Kelly v. State, 414 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). On remand, we instruct the trial court to conform the written sentences to its oral pronouncements. Tannihill v. State, 559 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED. GUNTHER and STONE, JJ., and OWEN, WILLIAM C, Jr., Senior Judge, concur.…
-
Ross v. State, 566 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…e and the state agreed. It was not until the court pointed out the guilty plea to the court at oral argument that either the state or appellant realized the jurisdictional quandary of this court. This case is almost identical to Tannihill v. State, 559 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) which held that this court did not have jurisdiction under similar factual circumstances. This mistaken plea cannot confer on this court jurisdiction when section 924.-06(3), Florida Statutes (1989), and Florida Rule of Criminal…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Barber v. State, 488 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- In re Forfeiture of 1981 Honda Motorcycle VIN: 2SC0103BM001578 Fla. Tag: 4444333, 440 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Kiriluk v. State, 440 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Williams v. State, 537 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)