WALTER JOSEPH ODOL, 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.
Double jeopardy bars a trial court from increasing a defendant's sentence after jeopardy has attached upon oral pronouncement of the original sentence, even when the defendant fails to appear for incarceration.
Once a trial court orally pronounces a sentence, jeopardy attaches and the court cannot impose an increased sentence, even if the defendant fails to appear for incarceration.
[1] Jeopardy attaches upon oral pronouncement of sentence, precluding a trial court from imposing an increased sentence even when the defendant fails to appear for incarcerat…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOdol entered a plea agreement on May 20, 2010, agreeing to a 15-month sentence with a June 21, 2010 reporting date. When he failed to appear, the tria…
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 Double Jeopardy Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Walter Joseph Odol, challenges his sentence on double jeopardy grounds. On May 20, 2010, Appellant entered into a negotiated plea agreement whereby he agreed to be sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment and the court agreed that he did not have to report to the jail until June 21, 2010. At the conelu*131sion of the plea hearing, the trial court orally pronounced Appellant’s sentence and the court reduced the sentence to writing on the same day. When Appellant failed to appear at the appointed time, the court vacated Appellant’s 15-month sentence and imposed a BO-month sentence over defense counsel’s objections. When the trial court orally pronounced the 15-month sentence, jeopardy attached and the trial court was precluded from imposing the increased sentence. Ingraham v. State, 842 So.2d 954, 955 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). This is not a case where the court deferred sentencing until the defendant returned from furlough. See Quarterman v. State, 527 So.2d 1380, 1381 (Fla.1988). Nor is it a ease where the State moved to vacate the plea pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(g). See Metellus v. State, 900 So.2d 491, 493-94 (Fla. 2005). We, therefore reverse Appellant’s 30-month sentence and remand with directions to impose the 15-month sentence contemplated by the plea agreement.
REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.
DAVIS, ROBERTS, and ROWE, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. State, 128 So. 3d 964 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…ay not impose a harsher sentence to punish the defendant for offenses committed while on furlough or for failing to return on the appointed date), disapproved of on other grounds, Metellus v. State, 900 So. 2d 491 (Fla.2005); see also Odol v. State, 64 So. 3d 130, 131 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Ingraham v. State, 842 So. 2d 954, 955 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). The State also concedes that there is no evidence that the prosecutor filed a motion to vacate Brown’s plea and sentence for noncompliance with the plea agreement.…
-
Arial Morris v. State, 185 So. 3d 630 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…im to leave on furlough ... the. double jeopardy claus.es bar the court from resentencing, the defendant to a greater term of imprisonment even though he did not live up to his part of the agreement.” Joslin, 826 So. 2d at 326; accord Odol v. State, 64 So. 3d 130, 131 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Ingraham, 842 So. 2d at 955. Based on the foregoing, we hold that the trial court violated, double jeopardy by resentencing Appellant following her return from furlough. Therefore, we reverse Appellant’s sentence and reman…
Authorities Cited
- THE Florida BAR v. Mullins, 527 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 1988)
- State v. Mosley, 900 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 2004)
- Ingraham v. State, 842 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)