JAMES E. MCMILLAN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 defendant who accepts a beneficial plea agreement, even if it deviates from statutory requirements, cannot later challenge the agreement after failing to uphold its terms.
McMillan pled nolo contendere to sexual battery and burglary and was sentenced to community control. He later violated the terms of his community cont…
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 Community Control cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
James McMillan appeals from the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief. We affirm.
In 1993, McMillan pled nolo contendere to charges of sexual battery and burglary. In exchange for his plea, he was sentenced to community control. In 1994, defendant violated the terms of his community control and was sentenced to fifteen years in prison. He filed a motion for postconviction relief, arguing that the court which accepted his initial plea was precluded, under section 948.01(10), Florida Statutes (1991), from placing him on community control. He sought release on the basis that his community control — precluded by statute — could not be revoked, as it had been imposed unlawfully. We reject his claim.
McMillan accepted the terms of an extremely beneficial plea agreement, and could not live up to those generous terms. He is now estopped from challenging that agreement.
[Ojur courts have held that sentences and other judicial actions which deviate from statutory and even constitutional requirements to the potential benefit of the defendant and to which he agreed may not be the subject of a successful challenge brought only after he has failed to carry any burden imposed upon him.
Madrigal v. State, 545 So. 2d 392, 394 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); see also King v. State, 373 So. 2d 78, 79 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)(‘We hold that the defendant has waived his right to question the legality of a probation, which he has enjoyed and violated.”), cert. denied, 383 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980).
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Insko v. State, 933 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…9-10 (quoting 12 Fla. Jur. Estop-pel and Waiver § 51). This general principle of estoppel has been applied in other [*684] criminal cases in analogous circumstances. See, e.g., Battles v. State, 919 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); McMillan v. State, 701 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); McKee v. State, 450 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); King v. State, 373 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE TRIAL COURT COMPLY WITH OUR MANDATE The second additional ground upon which Insko’s judgment and sente…
-
Mobley v. State, 808 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Gonzalez v. State, 789 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), review denied, SC01-1747, — So. 2d - (Fla. Feb. 7, 2002); McMillan v. State, 701 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).…
-
Jackson v. State, 145 So. 3d 935 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…on); Jackson v. State, 728 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (table decision); Lee v. State, 666 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Harris v. State, 789 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Dupree v. State, 708 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); McMillan v. State, 701 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). KELLY, VILLANTI, and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.…
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
- Domingo Antonio Madrigal v. State, 545 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Shearund Duron King v. State, 373 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)