Parks v. State, 3D03-343.
| Decision Date | 17 December 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 3D03-343.,3D03-343. |
| Citation | 863 So.2d 382 |
| Parties | Givanni Torrell PARKS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Howard K. Blumberg, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Richard L. Polin, Assistant Attorney General, and Rebecca M. Placensia, Certified Legal Intern, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and COPE, and RAMIREZ, JJ.
We conclude that the trial court correctly found, after a full evidentiary hearing, that appellant failed to comply with the terms of his plea agreement, thus the trial court properly vacated his sentence and resentenced him. McCoy v. State, 599 So.2d 645 (Fla.1992). The plea agreement required the appellant to testify against his co-defendant, identifying him as the shooter in a homicide prosecution. The testimony was to be consistent with his prior sworn statement. However, at his deposition, appellant claimed that he could not remember most of the information contained in his prior sworn statement, and would not identify the co-defendant as the shooter. We therefore affirm.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parks v. State
...with a copy of the plea contract and his sworn statement, he refused to implicate his "co-defendant as the shooter." Parks v. State, 863 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003).Page 4 Following the deposition, the State sought to declare Parks in violation of the plea agreement. The trial court found......
-
Parks v. State
...with a copy of the plea contract and his sworn statement, he refused to implicate his "co-defendant as the shooter." Parks v. State, 863 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003).Following the deposition, the State sought to declare Parks in violation of the plea agreement. The trial court found him in......
- Parks v. State, SC05-978.
-
Parks v. State, 3D18-796
...illegal and he did not violate his plea agreement. This Court has previously reviewed and dismissed those arguments. See Parks v. State, 863 So.2d 382 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). As such, we consider this petition as if filed as a 3.850 motion. We therefore affirm the trial court's denial of Park's......