WILLIAM FLOYD COLLIER, 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.
William Collier appealed his sentence following a nolo contendere plea, challenging the trial court's failure to allow plea withdrawal when it declined to follow the plea agreement and its improper assessment of legal constraint points. The court reversed on both grounds, holding that Florida law mandates an opportunity to withdraw a plea when the court rejects a plea agreement, regardless of whether the ultimate sentence falls within guidelines.
The court reversed on both issues. Florida law requires that when a trial court decides not to follow a plea agreement, it must provide the defendant an opportunity to withdraw the plea, and the trial court has an affirmative duty to inform the defendant of this right. The assessment of legal constraint points was also reversed under the rule of Flowers v. State and Sellers v. State.
[1] A trial court must provide a defendant an opportunity to withdraw a nolo contendere plea if the court declines to accept the plea bargain agreement.
[2] A defendant's right to withdraw a plea when a plea agreement is not followed is not affected by the fact that the defendant ultimately receives a sentence within the guid…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Florida law requires that in the event the trial court decides not to follow a plea agreement, the court provide the defendant with the opportunity to withdraw his plea.”
Establishes the core holding regarding plea withdrawal rights when courts reject plea agreements
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCollier entered a nolo contendere plea with a plea agreement. The trial court declined to follow the plea agreement. Judge Turner, who imposed sentenc…
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 Legal Constraint Points cases and more on FLexlaw
BOOTH, Judge.
This cause is before us on appeal from a judgment and sentence under the guidelines following a plea of nolo contendere.1 Appellant argues, inter alia, that the trial court erred in: (1) failing to permit him to withdraw his plea after declining to accept the plea bargain agreement; and (2) assessing legal constraint points on his guidelines scoresheet for each offense he committed while on probation. We must reverse as to both issues.
Florida law requires that in the event the trial court decides not to follow a plea agreement, the court provide the defendant with the opportunity to withdraw his plea. Rhodes v. State, 555 So. 2d 1323 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Williams v. State, 547 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Williams v. State, 541 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Devard v. State, 504 So. 2d 28, 29 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). The fact that a defendant ultimately receives a sentence within the guidelines does not affect his right to withdraw his plea if the terms of the plea agreement are not followed. Rhodes, supra at 1324. Further, the court has an affirmative duty to inform the defendant of his right to withdraw his plea. Moore v. State, 489 So. 2d 1215, 1216 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). The record reflects that Judge Turner, who sentenced appellant, mistakenly believed that Judge Sirmons had already given appellant an opportunity to withdraw his plea. Due to this misunderstanding, appellant was not afforded an opportunity to withdraw his plea after the court decided not to follow the plea agreement.2
We must also reverse the error in the computation of the points for legal constraint under the rule of Flowers v. State, 586 So. 2d 1058 (Fla.1991), and Sellers v. State, 578 So. 2d 339, 340 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). We note that the trial court did not have the benefit of these recent decisions at the time it sentenced appellant.
The judgment and sentence are, accordingly, reversed.
ZEHMER and WOLF, JJ., concur. . Prior appeal is reported at 535 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).
. We reject appellee’s argument that Judge Turner’s presentence comment, that he understood appellant had previously been given an opportunity to withdraw his plea but that he had persisted in his plea, provided appellant with a sufficient opportunity to withdraw his plea.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Payne v. State, 624 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…. Under the unique facts of this case, we agree. When a court determines prior to imposing sentence, that it cannot impose sentence in accord with the plea agreement, it must give the defendant an opportunity to withdraw his plea. Collier v. State, 590 So. 2d 456, 457 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Thus, in those cases where a defendant requests a furlough it must be determined whether such furlough is part of the plea agreement. Where a furlough and enhanced sentence for failure to appear are part of the negotiated p…
Authorities Cited
- Flowers v. State, 586 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 1991)
- Louie Anthony Sellers v. State, 578 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Fernandez v. Efigenia Nancy Fernandez, 578 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Rayfield Moore v. State, 489 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Williams v. State, 547 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Cederic Williams v. State, 541 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Devard v. State, 504 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Collier v. State, 535 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Rhodes v. State, 555 So. 2d 1323 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)