MARIO JEROME WILSON, 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 court affirmed the trial court's amendment of Wilson's sentence to conform to his plea agreement but reversed and remanded because Wilson had the right to be present at resentencing.
A trial court has discretion to amend a sentence to conform to a plea agreement without permitting withdrawal of the plea, but the defendant has the right to be present when the new sentence is imposed.
[1] A trial court has discretion to amend a sentence to conform to a plea agreement without permitting withdrawal of the plea, consistent with Echeverría v. …
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 intelligenceWilson challenged a Rule 3.850 motion alleging his sentence did not conform to the plea agreement. The trial court amended the sentence to conform to …
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 Plea Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant challenges the order granting in part and denying in part his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion based upon the allegation that his sentence did not conform to the plea agreement. The trial court granted relief by amending the sentence to conform to the plea agreement, but it denied Appellant’s request to allow him to withdraw his plea based on Echeverria v. State, 949 So.2d 331 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Citing Pralle v. State, 60 So.3d 556 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011), Appellant contends that the trial court was obligated to allow him to withdraw his plea. We disagree. Pralle neither approved nor disapproved the alternative remedy imposed here of amending the sentence to conform to the agreement.'Consistent with Echev-erría, we now conclude that the trial court was within its discretion to amend the sentence and was not obligated to permit Appellant to withdraw his plea.
However, based on the State’s proper concession of error, we conclude that Appellant had the right to be present when the new sentence was imposed. Accordingly, we reverse in part the order under review and remand this cause with instructions that the court resentence Appellant while he is present.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
ORFINGER, TORPY and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wilson v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)…withdraw his plea. Instead, it amended Appellant’s sentence by reducing the probationary period on count three from ten years to five years, consistent with the agreed upon twenty-five-year cap. Appellant appealed to this Court. In Wilson v. State, 224 So. 3d 815 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017), this Court affirmed the trial court’s decision not to allow Appellant to withdraw his plea. However, concluding that Appellant had the right to be present during imposition of the new sentence, this Court remanded “with instruct…
Authorities Cited
- Echeverria v. State, 949 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Edwardo De Juan v. State, 249 So. 3d 681 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
- Schneider v. State, 60 So. 3d 556 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)
- Pralle v. State, 60 So. 3d 556 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)