NICOLO J. LEONE, 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.
The trial court correctly denied the defendant's motion to plead guilty in absentia to a felony probation violation charge.
The appellant sought to resolve a probation violation detainer by requesting to plead guilty in absentia and have his sentence run concurrently with a…
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 Violation Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Nicolo J. Leone appeals the trial court’s order denying his “Motion for Final Resolution of Detainer” relative to a probation violation charge.1 We conclude that the trial court correctly denied Leone’s motion as framed and, accordingly, affirm the trial court’s order.2
In his motion and accompanying memorandum of law filed with the trial court, Leone sought to resolve the detainer lodged against him by requesting the trial court (1) to allow him to plead guilty in absentia to the violation of probation charge, and (2) to impose a sentence concurrent with his 60-year Maine sentence. The trial court properly deemed Leone’s motion as one to plead in absentia to the violation of probation charge and then entered an order denying the motion.
Rule 3.180(a) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure requires the defendant’s presence at certain proceedings, including when a plea is made (unless a written plea of not guilty is made under the provisions of rule 3.170(a)) and at the pronouncement of judgment and the imposition of sentence. Although rule 3.180(c) provides that a defendant charged with a misdemeanor may be tried in absentia, this rule does not apply in this ease because Leone is charged with a violation of felony probation. Additionally, under section 921.16(2), Florida Statutes (1987), a court may, but is not required to, impose a sentence to run concurrently with one imposed by a court of another state.
AFFIRMED.
COBB, DIAMANTIS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . See Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(b)(1)(C).
. We decible to address on appeal matters which Leone failed to present to the trial court. See Trushin v. State, 425 So. 2d 1126, 1130 (Fla. 1982).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jarrett v. State, 654 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…a. 1st DCA 1994), petition for review filed, No. 84,875 (Fla. Dec. 22, [*975] 1994), we find it unnecessary to reach appellant’s constitutional claims, because Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.180 clearly dictates reversal. E.g., Leone v. State, 643 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (defendant’s presence required in felony prosecution); Summerall v. State, 588 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (felony defendant’s presence required at probation revocation hearing); Bradley v. State, 420 So. 2d 417, 418 (Fla. 1st D…
-
Singletary v. State, 870 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…nless he voluntarily absented himself from the hearing. See Zuluaga v. State, 793 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)(re-mand required to determine if defendant voluntarily absented himself from hearing where he was sentenced in absentia); Leone v. State, 643 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)(rule that defendant charged with a misdemeanor may be tried in absen-tia does not apply to defendant charged with a felony). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a hearing to determine whether the defendant knowingly, intelli…
-
Carson v. State, 139 So. 3d 444 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Leone v. State, 643 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). DAVIS, C.J., and CRENSHAW and BLACK, JJ., Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Trushin v. State, 425 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 1982)