SHERMAN HEIDELBURG, 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 trial court must offer a defendant the opportunity to withdraw their plea if the court cannot honor the plea agreement.
Defendant admitted to technical violations of community control and agreed to a sentence of three and one-half years. However, at sentencing, the cour…
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 Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.701(d)(14) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Sherman Heidelburg appeared before the circuit court in December, 1991, to face charges of having violated community control. He admitted certain “technical” violations, in exchange for which the state agreed to a sentence of three and one-half years. A new felony charge was pending, however, and the court deferred sentencing until that case was resolved.
Heidelburg next appeared before the court in April, 1992. The pending felony charge had been dropped; thus the court was ready to impose sentence for the VOCC. Unfortunately, at this juncture in the events Heidelburg was represented by a different attorney who was not certain about the extent of the prior plea negotiations. When the three and one-half-year figure was mentioned, the court stated, “The recommendation I’m looking at says four and a half years,” and the prosecutor added that her notes “do not indicate any agreement in this particular case.” The fact, evident from the record, however, is that a negotiated plea had been achieved in December, 1991. That circumstance seems to have eluded everyone, including the trial court, when the parties discussed the effect of sentencing guidelines. The state suggested that Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(14) (enhancement for violations of community control) would permit a sentence of up to seven years. The court imposed the seven-year sentence.
When a trial court finds it cannot honor a plea negotiation, it should offer the defendant the opportunity to withdraw the plea. See, e.g., Humphries v. State, 563 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). We therefore remand this matter with instructions to reduce the sentence to the three and one-half years agreed upon in 1991, or allow Heidelburg the chance to withdraw his plea. This is an example of a needless appeal which could have been avoided by more attentive concern for past occurrences.
Reversed.
FRANK, C.J., RYDER and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Harreld v. Harreld, 682 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…ncerning the allegedly improperly liquidated assets, which are only vaguely described as stocks and life insurance policies and are not listed on either party’s financial statement, makes meaningful appellate review impossible. See Plyler v. Plyler, 622 So. 2d 573, 574 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). Moreover, the husband contends the court failed to distribute certain assets identified on his financial statement. On remand, we direct the lower court to reconsider the equitable distribution. When the court enters a new…
-
Lou Jean Miller v. Miller, 625 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…case must be reversed and remanded for findings required by section 61.075(3) as to the identity of marital assets, their valuation, and their ultimate disposition to the parties (outright or by way of substitution of assets). See Plyler v. Plyler, 622 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Bussey v. Bussey, 611 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Moreno v. Moreno, 606 So. 2d 1280 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). Until those findings are made, an appellate court cannot undertake a meaningful review of the appealed judgment. In a…
-
Ingle v. Ingle, 640 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…uitable distribution of marital assets and rehabilitative alimony, and remand this cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED. GOSHORN and THOMPSON, JJ„ concur. . See Plyler v. Plyler, 622 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). . § 61.075(1), Fla.Stat. (1993). This revised statute was not in effect when this lawsuit was filed. Section 8 of Laws of Florida 1993, c. 93-188 specifically provides that the Act does not apply to proceedings pending on Octob…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Humphries v. State, 563 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)