IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
OF THE STATE OF
STATE OF
Appellant,
Appeal No. CRC 04-11 APANO
UCN522004AP000011XXXXCR
v.
MYRICK T. NELSON
Appellee.
___________________________/
Opinion filed __________________.
Appeal from a decision of
the
County Judge Dorothy Vaccaro
C. Marie King, Esq.
Assistant State Attorney
Sarah Rumph, Esq.
Assistant Public Defender
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the State’s appeal from a decision of the Pinellas County Court granting the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea. After reviewing the briefs and record, this Court affirms the decision of the trial court.
At the time of his plea to the charges, the defendant also had a companion felony case that arose out of the same facts as were involved in the misdemeanor charge. The defendant entered his plea to the misdemeanor charges, but he did so with a condition. That condition is the crucial point in this appeal. The State’s argument is that the defendant entered the plea with only the condition that it not affect his ability to present his motion to suppress in the felony case. The State reasons that because there is nothing to indicate that the defendant was prevented from presenting his motion to suppress in the felony case, then the plea agreement should be honored. The fact that the defendant ultimately did not prevail on the motion to suppress is not a factor because the agreement was that the defendant would be able to present his motion, not that he would prevail on it.
The defendant’s position appears to be that the condition was that the plea in the misdemeanor case would not affect anything in his felony case. It appears that the position the defendant took in the misdemeanor proceedings is now, in hindsight, different from the position he wants to assert in the felony proceedings. Apparently, the trial judge believed that what the defendant was conditioning his misdemeanor plea on was the belief that the plea would not affect his ability to put on a defense to the felony charge. The trial court, at least by implication, found that a refusal to allow the withdrawal of the plea to the misdemeanor charges would be manifestly unjust because it might adversely affect the defendant’s position in the much more serious felony charge.
The
standard of review in this case is an abuse of discretion. Graham v. State,
779 So.2d 604 (
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the order granting the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea is affirmed.
DONE
AND ORDERED in Chambers at
________________________
James R. Case
Circuit Judge
_______________________
Nancy Moate Ley
Circuit Judge
_______________________
John A. Schaefer
Circuit Judge
cc: State Attorney
Public Defender
Judge Vaccaro