Hoover v. State
| Decision Date | 08 September 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 71291,71291 |
| Parties | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 537 Stanley HOOVER, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Michael E. Allen, Public Defender and P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, for petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Kurt L. Barch, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.
We have for review Hoover v. State, 511 So.2d 629 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), in which the district court on its own initiative found the trial court committed fundamental error in accepting a nolo contendere plea to a reduced offense arising out of a plea agreement. We find conflict with Ray v. State, 403 So.2d 956 (Fla.1981). We have jurisdiction, article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution, and quash the decision of the district court.
The pertinent facts show that petitioner, Stanley Hoover, was initially charged by information with the capital felony of sexual battery upon a person less than twelve years of age, a crime which carries a life sentence and a mandatory minimum twenty-five-year term of incarceration. The state and Hoover entered into a plea agreement which permitted Hoover to plead nolo contendere to a first-degree felony charge of sexual battery of a child over the age of eleven by a person in a position of familial or custodial authority over the victim, under section 794.011(4)(e), Florida Statutes (1983), punishable by a maximum sentence of thirty years. § 775.082(3)(b), Fla.Stat. (1983). Setting forth its reasons in writing, the trial court departed from the recommended guideline sentence of seven to nine years and, instead, imposed a sentence of thirty years. On appeal to the district court, the parties did not dispute the validity of the plea; rather, the sole issue was whether the trial judge had authority to depart and impose the thirty-year sentence.
The First District Court of Appeal, sua sponte, raised the issue of the plea's validity and found the trial court committed fundamental error in accepting Hoover's nolo contendere plea to the crime enunciated in section 794.011(4)(e). The district court determined that Hoover, under the facts, could not possibly have committed the crime to which he pled nolo contendere, since the evidence clearly proved he did not commit sexual battery upon a child over the age of eleven. The district court stated: "[A] prosecutor may not negotiate, and a trial court may not accept, a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to an offense which the undisputed evidence shows the defendant did not commit, notwithstanding that the defendant understands and acquiesces, for whatever reason, to the improper procedure." Hoover, 511 So.2d at 635.
Both the state and Hoover challenge the decision of the First District Court and argue it cannot be reconciled with our decision in Ray where the defendant was charged with sexual battery, but was convicted by a jury of lewd assault as a lesser offense. We recognized that the lesser offense for which the defendant was convicted was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Smith
...permitted pleas to "crimes" that were legally impossible. See, e.g., Downer v. State, 543 A.2d 309, 312-313 (Del.1988); Hoover v. State, 530 So.2d 308 (Fla.1988); People v. Waits, 695 P.2d 1176, 1178-1179 (Colo.Ct.App.1984), rev'd in part on other grounds, 724 P.2d 1329 (Colo.1986) (en banc......
-
Brown v. State
...lesser included to the offense charged. Under the latter situation, the error is not fundamental and can be waived. See Hoover v. State, 530 So.2d 308 (Fla.1988); Ray v. State, 403 So.2d 956 ...
-
Turvey v. State
...Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.Oct. 19, 2016.Phillip Turvey, pro se.PER CURIAM.Affirmed. See Hoover v. State, 530 So.2d 308 (Fla.1988) ; Long v. State, 529 So.2d 286 (Fla.1988) ; State v. King, 426 So.2d 12 (Fla.1982) ; McDonald v. State, 133 So.3d 530 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) ; Domi......
-
Schneider v. State
...to Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk County; J. Dale Durrance, Judge. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Hoover v. State, 530 So.2d 308 (Fla.1988); Burrows v. State, 890 So.2d 286 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), review denied, 914 So.2d 952 (Fla.2005); Campbell v. State, 884 So.2d 190 (......