RICHARD PYLE, 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.
Richard Pyle appealed his sentence for resisting arrest with violence and disorderly intoxication after pleading nolo contendere. The court held that it had jurisdiction to review the appeal because the written probation order included a special condition (urinalysis submission and payment) that was not orally pronounced at sentencing, constituting an illegal sentence under Florida law.
The court has jurisdiction to review appeals following a nolo contendere plea when the appellant raises the issue of special conditions of probation in the written order that were not orally pronounced at sentencing. Such discrepancies mandate reversal and remand for correction of the written order to conform to the oral pronouncement.
[1] A defendant who pleads nolo contendere without an express reservation of the right to appeal generally forfeits the right to a direct appeal, unless the appeal raises iss…
[2] A court may determine it has jurisdiction to consider an appeal following a nolo contendere plea when the appeal raises issues regarding the inclusion of special conditio…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“The inclusion of special conditions of probation in a written order that were not orally pronounced at the sentencing hearing mandates a reversal and remand for correction of the written order to conform to the oral pronouncement.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard that discrepancies between oral pronouncement and written probation orders require reversal and remand.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePyle pleaded nolo contendere to resisting arrest with violence and disorderly intoxication. At sentencing, the trial court orally pronounced certain c…
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 Anders V. California cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Richard Pyle has appealed from sentence imposed after pleading nolo contendere to resisting arrest with violence and disorderly intoxication. His counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), averring that he is unable to make a good faith argument for reversible error, save that the special conditions of probation reflected on the written probation order do not conform to the oral pronouncement of those conditions. The state has moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny the motion to dismiss, and reverse and remand for correction of the written probation order to conform with the oral pronouncement.
The state first moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction prior to the filing of the initial brief, citing Pyle’s nolo contendere plea. See § 924.06(3), Fla.Stat. (a defendant who pleads nolo contendere with no express reservation of the right to appeal shall have no right to a direct appeal). Despite such a plea, a defendant can maintain a direct appeal if he raises issues which occur at the time the plea is entered: 1) the subject matter jurisdiction, 2) the illegality of the sentence, 3) the failure of the government to abide by the plea agreement, and 4) the voluntary and intelligent character of the plea. Ford v. State, 575 So. 2d 1335, 1337 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), citing Robinson v. State, 373 So. 2d 898, 902 (Fla.1979). The state alleged that, because Pyle’s sentence was not illegal, this court was without jurisdiction to consider the appeal.
The court denied the motion as premature, in that, in an Anders appeal, only after the initial brief, pro se brief and the complete record on appeal have been filed can the court determine if it lacks jurisdiction and whether dismissal of the appeal is proper. Ford at 1337. After the initial Anders brief was filed (Pyle did not file a pro se brief), the state renewed its motion, which we now deny.
Pyle argues on appeal that his sentence is illegal in that the written order placing him on probation includes a special condition, i.e. that he “submit [to] and pay for urinalysis at the direction of his probation officer,” that was not orally pronounced at sentencing.1 While this court has never held in so many words that this error constitutes an “illegal sentence,” we have held that “[t]he inclusion of special conditions of probation in a written order that were not orally pronounced at the sentencing hearing mandates a reversal and remand for correction of the written order to conform to the oral pronouncement. ” Rowland v. State, 548 So. 2d 812, 814 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (emphasis supplied); see also McCollun v. State, 586 So. 2d 490, 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
We therefore find that this court has jurisdiction, under Robinson and Ford, to consider those appeals in which the appellants pled nolo contendere, and whose written probation orders include special conditions of probation that were not orally pronounced at the sentencing hearing. The state’s motion to dismiss is denied, and this case is remanded to the trial court for correction of the written probation order to conform to the oral pronouncement of sentence only as to the special condition of submission to and payment for urinalysis.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
JOANOS, C.J., ERVIN and MINER, JJ., concur. . Pyle also alleges that the written special condition that he "must attend substance abuse treatment" was not orally pronounced at sentencing. However, careful review of the sentencing transcript reveals that this condition was orally pronounced, albeit not in the exact words appearing in the written probation order. We therefore find this portion of Pyle’s argument without merit.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 604 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…, if the defendant raises issues which occur at the time the plea is entered.” Ford v. State, 575 So. 2d 1335, 1337 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 581 So. 2d 1310 (Fla.1991). See also Robinson v. State, 373 So. 2d 898, 900 (Fla.1979); Pyle v. State, 596 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Because the alleged error in the order of revocation of probation occurred contemporaneously with entry of the plea and sentencing, the court has jurisdiction to consider the propriety of the revocation of probation order. There…
-
Trujillo-Pentate v. State, 609 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…e voluntary and intelligent nature of his plea on appeal, we nonetheless deny the state’s motion to dismiss as we have jurisdiction of the case in order to consider the sentencing issue raised, which is appealable under Robinson. See Pyle v. State, 596 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Appellant argues that the trial court erred reversibly in failing to make the required statutory findings that the predicate convictions supporting habitual felony offender sentencing had not been pardoned or set aside. This co…
-
Thad McGillery Brown v. State, 609 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…overnment’s failure to abide by the terms of the plea bargain, and (4) voluntary and intelligent character of the plea. Robinson v. State, 373 So. 2d 898, 902 (Fla.1979). See also Simmons v. State, 596 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Pyle v. State, 596 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Ford v. State, 575 So. 2d 1335, 1337 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 581 So. 2d 1310 (Fla.1991). Further, a criminal defendant cannot, by virtue of a plea bargain, confer upon a court the authority to impose an illegal sentence.…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Gissendanner v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1979)
- Robinson v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1979)
- Rowland v. State, 548 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Ford v. State, 575 So. 2d 1335 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- McCOLLUN v. State, 586 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)