Panno v. State, 4-86-2675
| Decision Date | 30 December 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 4-86-2675,4-86-2675 |
| Citation | 517 So.2d 129,13 Fla. L. Weekly 71 |
| Parties | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 71 Thomas PANNO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Anthony Cavallo, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Jr., Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and John W. Tiedemann, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
The defendant appeals an order of revocation of probation. We affirm and elect to discuss only one point on appeal, having duly considered them all.
Appellant pleaded guilty on April 2, 1981, to all three counts against him in a filed information: kidnapping, burglary and simple battery. He was put on probation for thirty years on the kidnapping count, with fifteen years' probation for burglary and one year for the battery, all to be served concurrently.
In 1985 he was charged with violation of probation. The affidavit of probation violation together with two amendments listed a total of 13 violations, but the prosecutor agreed to proceed on just five of these: a reporting violation, an unconsented departure from the county, a marijuana possession, a cocaine possession and an exposure of sexual organs. At the hearing on the alleged probation violation, the court found that appellant had committed four of the five violative acts. Sentencing was postponed. Two months later, appellant filed a sworn motion to withdraw or vacate his guilty plea which he had entered five years earlier. The motion was denied by written order.
Appellant was then sentenced as follows: On the kidnapping count, 30 years in prison; on the burglary count, 15 years, and on the battery one year, all to be served consecutively in that order. As the sentencing order reflects, appellant chose not to be sentenced under the guidelines.
At the hearing on violation of probation, appellant's probation officer, Kim Farnam, testified that while on probation appellant left the county without first obtaining a travel permit from the probation department. Kim Nguyen testified concerning the charge of exposure of sexual organs, saying that in April 1985--without recalling the exact date--she saw a man near her house with a blue bandana over part of his face and with his pants down below his knees and that she had picked the accused out in a lineup.
Lake Worth Police Sergeant Edward Riddle described both a photo lineup and a live lineup before Ms. Nguyen, who picked appellant in the live lineup when the six participants wore bandanas over the lower part of their faces.
Sergeant Donald L. Williams testified to finding a blue bandana in appellant's car when he searched it incident to arrest, and finding marijuana, cocaine and drug paraphernalia at appellant's house after obtaining a search warrant. There were also blue bandanas in appellant's bedroom.
Appellant first contends there are two reasons why he should have been allowed to withdraw his 1981 guilty plea: (1) that there was no factual basis to support his plea to the kidnapping count; and (2) that he was given incorrect information on the penalty to which he would be subject.
The evidence here was basically that appellant, who appeared to have something in his hand that could have been a weapon, approached two teenaged girls who were sunbathing, told them to be quiet on pain of being hurt, ordered them to go into their house, shoved one of them to the ground on the way to the house, and then entered the house with them. Appellee points out that according to Faison v. State, 426 So.2d 963 (Fla.1983), one can be guilty of both kidnapping and the underlying felony unless the confinement was inconsequential or inherent in the nature of the underlying felony. 426 So.2d at 966. The Supreme Court upheld kidnapping convictions in that case although the victims were abducted only short distances before the underlying felonies of rape were committed. The state urges that the forced moving of the girls to their house in the instant case was not merely incidental to the burglary. We agree.
Appellee agrees that appellant was advised at the time when he was considering pleading guilty that his maximum penalty for the kidnapping was 30 years, when in fact it was life in prison. Thus, appellant's second reason for feeling he was entitled to withdraw his guilty plea is factually true.
Understanding the maximum penalty to which one is exposing himself is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
James v. Sec'y, DOC, Case No. 3:10-cv-763-J-37TEM
...withdraw his plea after sentencing, and the Court held this issue is properly addressed in a 3.850 motion. Id., citing Panno v. State, 517 So.2d 129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), Williams v. State, 316 So.2d 267 (Fla. 1975), and Franklin v. State, 645 So.2d 166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). In Moore, the Cou......
-
Sims v. State, 93-1378
...due to the trial court's failure to advise the defendant of an extra five year mandatory minimum sentence. Hatcher; Panno v. State, 517 So.2d 129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), rev. denied, 525 So.2d 880 The last challenge is a three-part attack on the restitution imposed. Defendant claims: it was no......
-
Biggs v. State, 97-3366.
...was not slight or inconsequential, not inherent in the nature of the other crimes, and helped to avoid detection); Panno v. State, 517 So.2d 129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)(defendant's acts in forcing two teenaged girls who were sunbathing to go into their house, shoving one to the ground along the......
-
Hatcher v. State, 91-0243
...its terms. See Mickens v. State, 562 So.2d 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Gore v. State, 552 So.2d 1185 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Panno v. State, 517 So.2d 129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), rev. denied, 525 So.2d 880 At sentencing, the trial court ruled that the appellant was liable to the victim for some amou......