Stranigan v. State, 84-345
| Decision Date | 05 October 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-345,84-345 |
| Citation | 457 So.2d 546 |
| Parties | James W. STRANIGAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jerry Hill, Public Defender, Bartow, and Allyn Giambalvo, Asst. Public Defender, Clearwater, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William I. Munsey, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
The defendant challenges the propriety of the sentence imposed upon him pursuant to his plea of nolo contendere. The defendant was charged with burglary and subsequently entered a nolo contendere plea to the charge on the understanding that he would receive probation. However, at sentencing, a different judge presided and sentenced the defendant to three years' incarceration, then suspended the three-year sentence and instead placed the defendant on three years of community control. The defendant protested the sentence on the ground that community control was not the same as probation and asked that he be permitted to withdraw his plea on the ground that he was promised probation and did not receive it. The trial judge denied the motion, indicating his belief that community control was at least consistent with probation. Later the defendant made a motion for reconsideration of the sentence or, in the alternative, to withdraw the plea of nolo contendere. The trial judge denied the defendant's motion but modified the original sentence to two years' community control followed by one year of probation. This appeal followed.
We agree with the defendant that community control is a more severe sanction than probation. Section 948.001, Florida Statutes (1983), defines community control and probation as follows:
(1) "Community control" means a form of intensive, supervised custody in the community, including surveillance on weekends and holidays, administered by officers with restricted caseloads. Community control is an individualized program in which the freedom of an offender is restricted within the community, home, or noninstitutional residential placement and specific sanctions are imposed and enforced.
(2) "Probation" means a form of community supervision requiring specified contacts with parole and probation officers and other terms and conditions as provided in s. 948.03.
[Emphasis added.]
When a plea agreement is not honored, either by mistake, inadvertence, or subsequent change in the trial judge's concurrence with the plea bargain, the defendant should...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ogden v. State, 92-19
...and more severe alternative to ordinary probation." See also Braxton v. State, 524 So.2d 1141 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Stranigan v. State, 457 So.2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). More recently, the supreme court stated that community control was "a more coercive deprivation of liberty and a more serio......
-
Swain v. State
...State v. Mestas, 507 So.2d 587, 588 (Fla.1987), quashed on other grounds in Welch v. State, 536 So.2d 225 (Fla.1988); Stranigan v. State, 457 So.2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). In Tal-Mason v. State, 515 So.2d 738 (Fla.1987), in its consideration of the degrees of coerciveness exerted by differe......
-
Gill v. State
...and is a violation of the plea agreement. Thus, Gill should be given the opportunity to withdraw his plea. See Stranigan v. State, 457 So.2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Odom v. State, 310 So.2d 770, 771 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). Gill, however, never moved to withdraw his plea in the trial court. Acco......
-
Sharpe v. State, 88-2183
...to give defendant opportunity to withdraw plea once it decided not to impose sentence in accordance with bargain); Stranigan v. State, 457 So.2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (defendant should have been afforded opportunity to withdraw nolo contendere plea, which was tendered on the understanding ......