Case Name: The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Mikal WHEELER, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2000-04-26
Citations: 756 So. 2d 230
Docket Number: No. 3D99-1102
Parties: The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Mikal WHEELER, Appellee.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and GERSTEN and GODERICH, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 756
Pages: 230–230

Head Matter:
The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Mikal WHEELER, Appellee.
No. 3D99-1102.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
April 26, 2000.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General and Jan E. Vair and Michael J. Nei-mand (Fort Lauderdale), Assistant Attorneys General, for appellant.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Suzanne M. Froix, Assistant Public Defender, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and GERSTEN and GODERICH, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The state appeals from an order invalidating a sentence which the parties previously stipulated in a plea agreement would be imposed if, as actually occurred, the defendant violated the probation which was granted as a condition of suspending the sentence. We find no basis whatever for this ruling both because the sentence was not an illegal one and because the defendant could not properly be heard to contend otherwise after receiving the benefit of the bargain. See Madrigal v. State, 545 So.2d 392 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Accordingly, the order under review is reversed and the cause remanded for appropriate sentencing in accordance with the prior agreement and the applicable law. See Williams v. State, 594 So.2d 273 (Fla.1992).