Summary
holding that where, upon a violation of the defendant's probation, the sentencing judge failed to impose the sentence the initial sentencing judge agreed would be imposed upon a violation of the defendant's probation, the proper remedy was to seek relief pursuant to rule 3.850
Summary of this case from Hutchinson v. StateOpinion
Case No. 4D04-1496.
Opinion filed May 26, 2004.
Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Stephen A. Rapp, Judge, L.T. Case Nos. 97-5929 CFA02, 01-13722 CFA02 and 02-13128 CFA02.
Sharon M. Cichoski, Quincy, pro se.
No appearance on behalf of appellee.
Appellant filed a motion to enforce a plea agreement after being sentenced for violating her probation. In her petition, she claims that she negotiated a sentence with one judge, was given time to accomplish certain tasks, and was then given a different sentence by another judge that was contrary to the plea agreement accepted by the first judge. Appellant appeals the order denying the motion to enforce. We affirm, because the proper method of relief is pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Seabrooks v. State, 817 So.2d 934, 935 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Our affirmance is without prejudice to appellant filing a proper motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Rule 3.850.
STONE, WARNER and GROSS, JJ., Concur.