Case Name: Leroy Junior REAVES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1982-05-19
Citations: 417 So. 2d 1000
Docket Number: No. 81-1342
Parties: Leroy Junior REAVES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: DOWNEY and BERANEK, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 417
Pages: 1000–1002

Head Matter:
Leroy Junior REAVES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 81-1342.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
May 19, 1982.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 3, 1982.
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, Anthony Calvello, Asst. ■ Public Defender, and Ronald K. McRae, Legal Intern, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Sharon Lee Stedman, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was charged with burglary and initially pleaded not guilty. After negotiations with the State, appellant pleaded nolo contendere in exchange for an agreed sentence of probation. The amount of probation time was to be left to the court's determination after receipt of a presentence investigation report. At the change of plea hearing the court interrogated appellant to determine that the plea was voluntary and that there was a factual basis therefor, etc. The trial judge concluded by advising appellant that "[i]f you mess up, you are gone, do you understand that?"
Appellant failed to show up twice for scheduled sentencing hearings. When he finally became available for sentencing, a probation supervisor who had made the original probation recommendation and prepared the PSI declined to support that recommendation in view of appellant's failure to appear for the scheduled sentencings. Defense counsel advised the court that, if it was not disposed to honor the plea bargain, appellant wished to withdraw the negotiated plea of nolo contendere. The trial court refused to allow withdrawal of the plea; it adjudicated appellant guilty and sentenced him to five years in prison. From that judgment and sentence he has perfected this appeal.
All of the cases involving the acceptance of a bargained plea hold the trial court should allow a defendant to withdraw the plea in the event the trial judge finds he cannot adhere to the sentencing part of the bargain. See, e.g., Kurlin v. State, 302 So.2d 147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Pringle v. State, 341 So.2d 535 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). The only exception to that rule should be that a defendant who through his own fault has made it inappropriate for the court to comply with the bargain will not be allowed to withdraw his plea if some prejudice has accrued to the State in the interim.
As we read this record no showing of prejudice to the State has been made. Therefore, before the trial court refused to allow withdrawal of appellant's plea it should determine that the state has been prejudiced by the delay. If no such prejudice is shown, appellant should be allowed to withdraw his nolo contendere plea and enter such plea as he may be advised.
Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and sentence appealed from and remand the cause with directions to hold an eviden-tiary hearing to determine the question of prejudice. If it is determined that the State has been prejudiced by the delay in appellant's not appearing for his scheduled sentencing, the court may proceed to resen-tence appellant without regard to the bargain. However, if no prejudice is shown, the court shall allow appellant to withdraw his plea and enter such plea as he may desire.
REVERSED AND REMANDED, with directions.
DOWNEY and BERANEK, JJ., concur.
LETTS, C. J., dissents, with opinion.