BRIAN BOLGER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 1991-10-24
No. 91-726
GOSHORN, C.J., and HARRIS and PETERSON, JJ., concur.
587 So. 2d 1184 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1991) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Topics
Right To Withdraw Plea Plea Agreement

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Right To Withdraw Plea cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

[*1185] PER CURIAM.

Brian Edward Bolger appeals his sentences for burglary of a structure and sexual battery with slight force. Pursuant to the terms of his plea agreement, Bolger pled guilty to both charges in exchange for the State’s recommendation of concurrent sentences. The written plea agreement was recognized by the trial judge who accepted Bolger’s guilty plea. Just prior to sentencing before a different judge, the State apprised Bolger that the portion of the agreement that indicated concurrent sentences would be imposed rather than consecutive was based on a misunderstanding between the victim and the State. Bol-ger immediately sought to withdraw his plea. The sentencing judge denied Bol-ger’s motion, ruling that the two sentences would run consecutively.

When a sentencing judge announces that he or she will not be bound by the terms of a plea agreement, the judge must provide the defendant with an opportunity to withdraw his plea. King v. State, 578 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Accordingly, Bolger’s sentence is reversed and the cause is remanded with instructions to allow Bolger an opportunity to withdraw his plea.

REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.

GOSHORN, C.J., and HARRIS and PETERSON, JJ., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Deponte v. State, 670 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
    …y say so. A court may not look beyond the language employed in a plea agreement to supply terms which could or should have been included, but for one reason or another, were not. See King v. State, 578 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Bolger v. State, 587 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Geiger v. State, 532 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Accordingly, having determined that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the special condition of probation that appellant have no unsupervised contact with his…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw