STATE OF FLORIDA
v.
DONALD ROBIN WILLIAMS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Section 322.34(2)(b)2., Florida Statutes, unambiguously requires a minimum sentence of ten days in jail for a third driving while license suspended conviction.
[1] Section 322.34(2)(b)2., Florida Statutes, unambiguously imposes a mandatory minimum ten-day jail sentence for a third driving while license suspended conviction.
[2] When a defendant's guilty plea is predicated upon a trial court's promised sentence that is later determined to violate mandatory sentencing requirements, the defendant m…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was convicted of driving while license suspended for the third time. The trial court imposed a sentence that did not include the mandatory te…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Withdrawal Of Guilty Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
The State appeals the sentence imposed by the trial court on appellee for his third driving while license suspended conviction (“DWLS”). It contends that the trial court failed to impose the mandatory ten-day jail sentence required under section 322.34(2)(b)2., Florida Statutes (2020). For the reasons stated in State v. Lebrun, No. 4D21-330 (Fla. 4th DCA Sept. 15, 2021) (issued this same date), we reverse, as the statute is clear and unambiguous, requiring a minimum sentence of ten days in jail. As in Lebrun, however, because appellee’s plea was based upon the trial court’s promised sentence, the trial court must first allow appellee to withdraw his plea. See Goins v. State, 672 So. 2d 30, 32 (Fla. 1996).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. CONNER, C.J., WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Anderson v. Owens, 205 F.2d 940 (9th Cir. 1953)…on is such that in the natural course of things the parties would include in the writing what was said during their prior negotiations if they intended the oral statements to be a part of the bargain. In the case of Logsdon v. Trunk, 37 Wash.2d 175, 222 P. 2d 851, 854, the Washington court quoted with approval the following language which the Supreme Court of Oregon in turn had quoted from Jones on the Construction of Contracts:. [*943] " 'The test of the completeness of the writing, proposed as a contract,…
Authorities Cited
- Kit Goins v. State, 672 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 1996)