JOHN HENRY WILLIAMS, 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.
John Henry Williams appealed his narcotics convictions, challenging the sentencing imposed under a plea bargain agreement. The court vacated certain sentences that were imposed contrary to the agreed plea bargain terms and remanded for correction, while affirming other aspects of the conviction.
The court vacated the judgment and sentence on the charge that should have been nol-prossed (Case No. 74-456) and vacated the concurrent five-year sentence that should have been probation (Case No. 74-450), directing the trial court to enter an order of probation consistent with the bargain. The court affirmed the remaining aspects of the conviction and sentence.
[1] A judgment and sentence entered through inadvertence, contrary to a plea bargain, will be vacated.
[2] A sentence of probation may be ordered in accordance with a plea bargain when a concurrent sentence was erroneously imposed.
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“Appellant's pleas were made upon the understanding that he would receive a five year sentence upon the charge for which he was found guilty and another five year sentence on one of the other charges so that he would receive a total of ten years imprisonment.”
Establishes the precise terms of the plea bargain agreement that the trial court failed to honor
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was arrested for narcotics violations and tried on one charge, resulting in a guilty verdict. He then entered into a plea bargain whereby he …
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
GRIMES, Judge.
The appellant was arrested for various narcotics violations. He was tried on one of the charges and found guilty. Thereafter, pursuant to a plea bargain, appellant pled guilty to all of the remaining charges except one which the State agreed to nol-pros. Appellant’s pleas were made upon the understanding that he would receive a five year sentence upon the charge for which he was found guilty and another five year sentence on one of the other charges so that he would receive a total of ten years imprisonment. He was to be given five years probation upon the other charges to run concurrently when he had completed serving the sentences.
Apparently through inadvertence, a judgment of guilt and sentence of probation were ultimately entered upon the charge which was to have been nol-prossed. Therefore, this judgment and sentence (Case No. 74-456) are hereby vacated. Likewise, in addition to receiving two consecutive five year sentences, appellant also received a concurrent five year sentence on another charge rather than probation. The sentence in that case is hereby vacated with directions to enter an order of probation in accordance with the bargain (Case No. 74-450). The remaining aspects of the bargain were fully performed.
All of the other points on appeal are without merit except for the argument about the factual basis for the pleas. The record does not reflect that the court ascertained a factual basis for the negotiated guilty pleas in accordance with Rule 3.-170(j), CrPR. Since appellant has alleged no prejudice for the failure to follow the rule, we affirm upon the authority of Hall v. State, Fla.App.2d 1974, 303 So. 2d 417 (Opinion filed November 13, 1974). However, we will certify all of the cases involving the guilty pleas to the Supreme Court posing the same question as was certified in Hall, supra.
HOBSON, Acting C. J., concurs.
BOARDMAN, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with opinion.
BOARDMAN, Judge
(concurring and dissenting in part).
Consistent with my position taken in Hall v. State, Fla.App.2d, 1974, 303 So. 2d 417, I concur only with the majority view to certify the question to the Supreme Court of Florida.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 316 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1975)…The certified question is answered in the negative, and the decision of the District Court is affirmed. It is so ordered. ADKINS, C. J., ROBERTS, J., and CARLISLE, Circuit Judge, concur. ENGLAND, J., concurs with an opinion. . Williams v. State, 316 So. 2d 303 (Fla.App.2d 1974). . This question was initially certified to us in Hall v. State, 303 So. 2d 417 (Fla.App.2d 1974), in which a separate opinion is rendered. . Note 7 of Boykin v. Alabama quoted with approval the following excerpt from Commonwealt…
-
State v. Lyles, 316 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 1975)…t District Court of Appeal reported at 299 So. 2d 146 (Fla.App. 1st 1974). The decision sought to be reviewed conflicts with Estes v. State, 294 So. 2d 122 (Fla.App. 1st 1974); Hall v. State, 303 So. 2d 417 (Fla.App. 2d 1974); and Williams v. State, 316 So. 2d 303 (Fla.App.2d 1974). We have jurisdiction under Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution. At issue is the failure of the trial court to ascertain the particulars of the robbery to which the defendant admitted his guilt. It is alleged that thi…
Authorities Cited
- Jensen v. Kaplan, 303 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)