PATRICIA L. PRALLE, 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.
Patricia Pralle appeals the trial court's denial of her motion to withdraw her guilty plea after sentencing. The court imposed a sentence exceeding the seven-year cap negotiated in her plea agreement, and the appellate court reversed, holding that a defendant must be permitted to withdraw a plea when the court imposes a sentence exceeding the negotiated cap.
A defendant must be permitted to withdraw her plea when the trial court accepts the plea and then imposes a sentence in excess of any negotiated sentence cap contained in the plea agreement. The trial court abused its discretion in denying Pralle's motion to withdraw her plea.
[1] A defendant must be permitted to withdraw a plea when the trial court imposes a sentence exceeding the negotiated sentence cap that induced the plea.
[2] A trial court abuses its discretion by denying a motion to withdraw a plea when the imposed sentence exceeds the negotiated sentence cap.
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“a defendant must be permitted to withdraw his or her plea where the trial court accepts a plea and then imposes a sentence in excess of any negotiated sentence cap contained in the plea agreement”
Establishes the controlling legal standard from Echeverria that a sentence exceeding the negotiated cap allows withdrawal of the plea
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePralle, age 17, was charged with grand theft for stealing a motor vehicle and jewelry, and petit theft for stealing cash, all from her paternal grandm…
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 Sentencing Cap cases and more on FLexlaw
Patricia L. Pralle appeals from the denial of her motion to withdraw plea after sentencing. Finding that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion, we reverse and remand with directions that the motion to withdraw plea be granted.
Pralle was charged with one count of grand theft for stealing a motor vehicle, another count of grand theft for stealing jewelry, and a count of petit theft for stealing less than $100 in cash. The victim in each count was Pralle’s paternal grandmother, who also served as Pralle’s legal guardian.1 Pralle’s criminal punishment scoresheet reflects no prior criminal record, and Pralle did not face a mandatory term of incarceration.
On February 22, 2010, Pralle entered a negotiated plea with an overall sentencing cap of seven years in state prison, with no reference to any probationary period that might extend the overall sentence beyond the seven-year cap. At sentencing, the defense requested that the court sentence Pralle to juvenile sanctions that would include psychological and drug treatment.2 The State agreed that Pralle “need[ed] dual diagnosis help,” adding that: “I think that is what’s in every one of the reports. She needs long-term inpatient help.”3 The State’s recommendation echoed comments from the victim that she only wanted Pralle to get the help that she needed and asked that Pralle be allowed to “come home.”
The trial judge, however, announced that he had decided to structure “something different than the seven-year-capped sentenced that I had — that I had offered,” and instead imposed a sentence of five years in state prison to be followed by five years of probation. Pralle moved to with*558draw her plea when the overall sentence exceeded the cap promised to induce her plea, but the trial court denied the motion.
On appeal, the State appears to concede error based upon Echeverria, v. State, 949 So.2d 831 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (holding that a defendant must be permitted to withdraw his or her plea where the trial court accepts a plea and then imposes a sentence in excess of any negotiated sentence cap contained in the plea agreement). Acknowledging Echeverría as controlling, the State simply requests that we “rule as justice requires.”
Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions that Pralle be permitted to withdraw her plea.
REVERSED and REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
TORPY and COHEN, JJ., concur.