J.A.N., A CHILD, 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 defendant does not have an absolute right to withdraw a plea simply because the sentence imposed is not consistent with their expectations, especially when the plea agreement explicitly states the court is not bound by recommendations.
Appellant entered a plea agreement with the State, which included recommended sanctions but also a clear statement that the court was not bound by the…
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 Plea Colloquy cases and more on FLexlaw
EVANDER, J.
Appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to withdraw plea. We affirm.
Appellant, his attorney, his mother, and the assistant state attorney executed a written plea agreement. The agreement reflected the recommended sanctions would be a judicial warning for six months, eight hours of juvenile detention center work detail, and court costs. However, the agreement also contained the following highlighted language:
The Juvenile and State Attorney understand that the following sentence (disposition) is a recommendation and is NOT BINDING on the Court, (emphasis in original)
After conducting a thorough plea colloquy, the trial judge accepted appellant’s plea.
During the disposition hearing, it became clear the trial judge was considering more severe sanctions than the sanctions recommended pursuant to the plea agreement. Appellant then moved to withdraw his plea on the grounds “that’s not what was bargained for.”
The withdrawal of a guilty or nolo contendere plea is not a matter of right, but is a question addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Cabrera v. State, 915 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). The instant plea agreement clearly reflected the trial court was not bound by the recommendation set forth therein. Appellant did not have a right to withdraw his plea solely because the imposed sanctions were not consistent with his expectations. Lepper v. State, 451 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
We find no abuse of discretion.
AFFIRMED.
GRIFFIN and PALMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
O'Berry v. State, 114 So. 3d 1110 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…recommendation to the court. This was done. When the sentence was imposed, the judge was not bound by the recommendation of the state attorney or any negotiations which occurred between the state attorney and the defense counsel.”); J.A.N. v. State, 947 So. 2d 1258, 1259 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (holding that where the trial court declined to follow a nonbinding recommendation made in accordance with the plea agreement, the defendant did not have a right to withdraw his plea). On the other hand, when the State fai…
-
Vito v. State, 270 So. 3d 1287 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)…he understands” numerous factors, such as the defendant’s rights to trial by jury and representation, and the terms and effect of the plea agreement. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.172(c). 4 The trial court properly rejected this argument. See J.A.N. v. State, 947 So. 2d 1258, 1259 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (“Appellant did not have a right to withdraw his plea solely because the imposed sanctions were not consistent with his expectations.”). ---PAGE 4--- 4 important part of it” when the state reminded him that he swore that…
Authorities Cited
- Lepper v. State, 451 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Alcides Cabrera v. State, 915 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)