Case Name: Karen Jo CHAMBERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1986-07-09
Citations: 491 So. 2d 309
Docket Number: No. 85-971
Parties: Karen Jo CHAMBERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: ANSTEAD, LETTS and DELL, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 491
Pages: 309–309

Head Matter:
Karen Jo CHAMBERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 85-971.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
July 9, 1986.
Clarification Denied Aug. 8, 1986.
Kayo E. Morgan of Sandstrom & Had-dad, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert L. Teitler, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order finding that appellant violated the terms of her probation, adjudicating her guilty of the underlying offense, and placing her on community control. Upon examination of the record it is apparent that appellant's admission of guilt to the violation was made because the trial court had an arbitrary policy of refusing prehearing release to persons charged with a violation of probation regardless of the nature or circumstances of the alleged violation or any other relevant considerations. A trial court may not refuse to consider pre-hearing release as a matter of "policy." Glosson v. Solomon, 490 So.2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).
The appellant stated that she feared the loss of her job if she remained incarcerated pending a probation violation hearing, and agreed to a guilty plea based upon the trial court's indication that that was the only way she could be released before the hearing. The trial court also required that she agree to be adjudicated guilty of the underlying offense. The appellant has completed her community control but seeks an opportunity to set aside her conviction. While we are sympathetic to appellant's position, we do not believe it appropriate for such a plea to be attacked on direct appeal. Accordingly, we affirm, but we do so without prejudice to the appellant to request the trial court to allow her to withdraw her plea of guilty to the probation violation.
ANSTEAD, LETTS and DELL, JJ., concur.