HENRY EUGENE SUGGS, 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.
Appellant Suggs challenges his guilty plea to violating probation and the imposition of a jail condition as part of his modified probation sentence. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's acceptance of the plea and the probation modification, finding no error in the court's procedures or its authority to impose the jail condition.
The court held that the trial court properly accepted the guilty plea to probation violation and did not err in modifying the probation terms by imposing the jail condition. The court found the plea was entered as part of a favorable bargain and that such conditions of probation do not violate Florida Statutes Section 948.01.
[1] A guilty plea entered pursuant to a plea bargain is valid if freely and voluntarily made, even if the defendant secured a favorable outcome from the bargain.
[2] A trial court is not required to determine the voluntariness and factual basis of a guilty plea at a probation revocation hearing when the plea is entered pursuant to a p…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“It is pointed out that appellant secured a very favorable plea bargain which, inter alia, resulted in the additional charges not being pursued by the state.”
Establishes that the court considered the favorable nature of the plea bargain in evaluating whether the plea was properly accepted.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSuggs was originally charged with uttering a forged instrument and entered a guilty plea on March 13, 1973, resulting in a three-year probation senten…
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 Factual Basis For Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant/defendant was charged with uttering a forged instrument and entered a not guilty plea at the arraignment hearing. On March 13, 1973, appellant entered a guilty plea to the said charge pursuant to plea bargain entered into with the state. The trial court determined that such plea was freely and voluntarily made, accepted the plea and ordered a presentence investigation. On April 2, 1973, the trial judge adjudged appellant guilty and sentenced him to three years probation, with a special condition of probation that appellant serve six months in jail. According to the record, appellant was released from the county jail in October of 1973. On January 23, 1974, appellant’s probation supervisor filed an affidavit alleging appellant had been arrested for breaking and entering a residence. On January 25, 1974, a revocation of probation hearing was timely held and, pursuant to plea bargain with the state, appellant entered a plea of guilty to violation of probation. The state then agreed not to file two additional charges against appellant as part of the plea bargain. The trial judge accepted the plea and sentenced appellant to the unexpired time of the original probation with a special condition that he spend one year in the county jail on the Work Release Program.
Appellant is contending that the trial court erred in accepting his guilty plea on January 25, 1974, at the revocation hearing, without first determining that there was a full understanding of the significance of the guilty plea and its voluntariness and that there was a factual basis for the plea. After reviewing the record we are unable to agree with appellant on this point. We were faced with a similar situation in Washington v. State, Fla.App.2nd, 1973, 284 So. 2d 236. We view the law of the cited case as applicable to this instant case. It is pointed out that appellant secured a very favorable plea bargain which, inter alia, resulted in the additional charges not being pursued by the state.
Appellant’s second point on appeal deals with the issue of whether the court erred in modifying the terms of appellant’s probation by imposition of the special condition that appellant be incarcerated for one year in the county jail on the Work Release Program. Appellant contends that said condition of probation was void as contrary to Florida Statutes, Section 948.-01. We do not agree and hold that the case of State v. Williams, Fla.App.2nd, 1970, 237 So. 2d 69, decided by this court is applicable. See, also, Lewis v. State, Fla.App.4th, 1974, 298 So. 2d 540. As we stated in State v. Williams, supra, “ . we are not concerned in this appeal with a sentence but with conditions of probation. . . ."
We have considered appellant’s other point and find that it is without merit.
Accordingly, we
Affirm.
McNULTY, C. J., and BOARDMAN and GRIMES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ivey v. State, 308 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)…a careful review of the evidence convinces us the trial court was justified in finding the appellant violated conditions of his probation. This court has previously disposed of the appellant’s second contention. See Suggs v. State, Fla.App.2d 1974, 304 So. 2d 463; Hults v. State, Fla.App., 307 So. 2d 489, opinion filed January 31, 1975. Finally, we cannot agree with appellant’s argument on his last point. Specifically, the appellant argues that in view of Fla.Stat. § 921.161(1) which requires: “. . . the co…
-
Douglas v. State, 433 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…uirements and waives the defense of inability to pay as well as other defenses. Upon a plea of guilty to an allegation of probation violation, there is no requirement that there be a determination as to the factual basis of the plea. Suggs v. State, 304 So. 2d 463, 464 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). While minimal due [*14] process standards must be met in probation revocation proceedings, it is not necessary to meet the strict requirements of a criminal trial. Baker v. State, 319 So. 2d 628, 629 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). A…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Wardell Robert Williams, 237 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)
- Lewis v. State, 298 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Smith v. State, 284 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)