LINDA G. MCINNES, 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.
Linda McInnes appealed her guilty plea conviction for obtaining property by worthless checks, arguing her plea was involuntary and that her sentence constituted unconstitutional imprisonment for debt. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed, finding the plea was knowing and voluntary and the sentence was not imposed solely because of her inability to pay restitution.
The court held that McInnes's guilty plea was knowing and voluntary, complying with the requirements of Williams v. State, and that the sentence was not unconstitutional imprisonment for debt. The sentence was not imposed solely because of her inability to pay restitution.
[1] A guilty plea is voluntary and intelligent if the trial court complies with the requirements of Williams v. …
[2] A sentence is not rendered illegal by the prosecutor's recommendation for aggravation, especially when the sentence imposed is less than the maximum and other charges wer…
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“A review of the colloquy between the trial judge and the Defendant at the time of the entry of the guilty plea indicates the judge complied with the requirements of Williams v. State, 316 So.2d 267 (Fla.1975).”
Establishes that the guilty plea was valid and met constitutional requirements
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcInnes pleaded guilty to three five-year felonies for obtaining property by worthless checks. At sentencing, the Assistant State Attorney recommended…
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 Maximum Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
Two grounds for appeal are alleged, both of which we find are without merit. One, that the Defendant did not voluntarily and intelligently tender her plea of guilty. Two, that the court sentenced her to prison because she was unable to make restitution to her victims, thus an imprisonment for debt violative of Article I, Section II, Florida Constitution.
A review of the colloquy between the trial judge and the Defendant at the time of the entry of the guilty plea indicates the judge complied with the requirements of Williams v. State, 316 So. 2d 267 (Fla.1975).
At the time of sentencing the Assistant State Attorney when asked by the court if he had anything to say “in aggravation of the circumstances” replied, “I don’t think the interest of justice would be served by putting her on probation. I feel like the local merchants are out a great deal of money, which she has utterly no way to make restitution thereto, and I suggest the court impose the maximum sentence.” Since the Defendant pleaded guilty to three five-year felonies, obtaining property by worthless check, the maximum sentence would have been 15 years imprisonment and $15,000. The judge sentenced her to 10 years in the state penitentiary and $1.00.
There is no evidence in the record to support the contention of the Defendant that the judge followed the advice of the prosecutor in his sentence, and we note the Defendant was not given the maximum sentence, and we are aware from the record that other charges of worthless check violations were not prosecuted. It is noted that several of the checks in question were for groceries, and the sentence may appear severe to this apparently previously uncon-victed mother of four small children. However, this court does not have before it the complete record that was before the trial court; and it is well established that this court has no authority to review a legally imposed sentence. It is not suggested that such a review would be necessarily advisable, since the law does allow for review of sentences through pardon, commutation, and parole.
AFFIRMED.
ANSTEAD, J., concurs.
ALDERMAN, J., concurs in result only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Laird v. State, 394 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…our months later. We are powerless to reverse or amend this judgment because there was sufficient evidence to uphold Laird’s conviction, no error occurred in jury instructions, and the sentence imposed was within the legal limits. McInnes v. State, 345 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). However, the harshness of the sentence, under the circumstances, deserves comment. Justice should be tempered with mercy and understanding. They appear to have been overlooked in this case. AFFIRMED. FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., an…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 316 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1975)