SANTA CARIDAD PEREZ, 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.
Santa Caridad Perez appeals the trial court's denial of her motion to withdraw a no contest plea to ten counts of grand theft. The court reversed because the trial judge materially altered the plea agreement terms during sentencing (changing the probation period from 5 to 10 years and increasing restitution from $6,137.52 to $12,067.82), which entitled Perez to withdraw the plea.
The trial court erred in denying the motion to withdraw the plea. When a plea agreement is reached and presented at the plea hearing but the sentencing judge changes the terms without the defendant's consent, the defendant must be allowed to withdraw the plea. Additionally, it was error to order restitution on counts not included in the original charge.
[1] A trial court errs by imposing terms of probation and restitution that deviate from a plea agreement without allowing the defendant to withdraw their plea.
[2] A defendant should be allowed to withdraw a plea when the plea was based upon a misunderstanding or misapprehension of the facts considered by the defendant in making the…
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“In the instant case, a plea agreement was reached between the defendant and the state and was tendered at the plea hearing. The trial judge did not concur, however, and changed the terms during the sentencing hearing. This was error since the court should have allowed the plea to be withdrawn.”
Establishes the core holding that a trial judge cannot unilaterally modify a plea agreement after it has been presented.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn March 27, 1991, Perez entered a plea of no contest to ten counts of grand theft (seven third degree and three second degree) involving worthless ch…
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 Probation Terms cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
The issue on this appeal is whether the trial court should have allowed a plea of nolo contendere to be withdrawn.
On March 27, 1991, the defendant entered a plea of no contest to ten of nineteen charged counts (seven third degree grand theft and three second degree grand theft offenses) regarding worthless checks. Defense counsel set forth the plea negotiations between the defendant and the state. Accordingly, the defendant was to receive five years probation, “concurrent on each count” and be required to pay restitution on all nineteen of the originally charged counts for a total of $6,137.52.
The plea form was written in Spanish for the benefit of the defendant, who understood she was pleading to five years of probation (all counts concurrent) and ten counts of grand theft with restitution on all nineteen counts (less any amounts that her daughter might be forced to pay). Her counsel stated:
So we’re agreeing to pay the restitution on these nineteen they have charged in the information as of today. Not restitution for things that were not charged. (Emphasis supplied).
At the sentencing hearing on April 26, 1991, the state conceded that they had “agreed to restitution” as to nineteen counts in the amount of $6,137.52. At this point, however, the victim of the worthless checks (grocery store owner) told the trial court that he was actually out $12,767.82 when all1 the bad checks were counted.
The trial court concluded that Count I and Count III were to run “consecutive” to each other; each being five year probationary terms. All other counts were set for five years of probation and were to run “concurrent” to Count I. The result was that the defendant would be on probation for ten years. The court also ordered restitution in the amount of $12,067.82. At this juncture, defense counsel objected to the amount of restitution. The trial court explained that he believed he had the authority to order restitution to attempt to restore a victim to the best position obtainable had there not been any wrongdoing.
Defense counsel asked to withdraw the plea of no contest since there was a $6,132.52 restitution understanding and an understanding that only five years probation would be given. The trial court did not recall committing to a “formal” agreement and defense counsel agreed. As a result, the trial court denied the motion to withdraw the plea.
In the instant case, a plea agreement was reached between the defendant and the state and was tendered at the plea hearing. The trial judge did not concur, however, and changed the terms during the sentencing hearing. This was error since the court should have allowed the plea to be withdrawn. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.172(g). Jenkins v. State, 549 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). It is well established that a defendant should be allowed to withdraw a plea when the plea was based upon a misunderstanding or misapprehension of the facts considered by the defendant in making the plea. Forbert v. State, 437 So. 2d 1079, 1081 (Fla.1983); Brown v. State, 245 So. 2d 41 (Fla.1971); Wade v. State, 488 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Yesnes v. State, 440 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). It was also error to order restitution on the uncharged counts.
The judgment and sentence are reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for the preparation of an order granting the defendant’s motion to withdraw the plea.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
W. SHARP, and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. . Many social security checks were cashed outside of the statute of limitations period and hence, no charges were filed on these.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Hossain Rajaee, 745 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…e of his rights and of the consequences of his acts, or was influenced unduly and improperly, or if it appears that the plea was entered under some mistake or misapprehension. Forbert v. State, 437 So. 2d 1079 (Fla.1983); Rubenstein; Perez v. State, 596 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Ryals v. State, 516 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). The trial judge’s decision regarding withdrawal of a plea should not be disturbed on appeal, absent a showing of an abuse of discretion. Hunt v. State, 613 So. 2d 893 (Fla.199…
-
Stewart v. State, 629 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…to, Stewart’s crime. Also, Stewart did not agree to pay restitution for her employer’s claimed loss of $11,749. See Dyer v. State, 622 So. 2d 1158, 1158 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). (citing State v. Williams, 520 So. 2d 276, 277 (Fla.1988)); Perez n State, 596 So. 2d 487, 488 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). See also Burke v. State, 596 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Mansingh v. State, 588 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Reeves v. State, 560 So. 2d 1368 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Accordingly, we reverse and remand this cause for en…
-
Demcak v. State, 616 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…ity to withdraw his plea. Where a sentence imposed exceeds that contemplated by a plea agreement, the court is required to afford the defendant an opportunity to withdraw his plea. Forbert v. State, 437 So. 2d 1079, 1081 (Fla.1983); Perez v. State, 596 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); McCollun v. State, 586 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); King v. State, 578 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Kirkland v. State, 575 So. 2d 1315 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Humphries v. State, 563 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). We agree tha…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 245 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 1971)
- Forbert v. State, 437 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 1983)
- Yesnes v. State, 440 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Wade v. State, 488 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Kennedy, 549 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)