These are consolidated appeals from two judgments and sentences for the crime of escape. Appellant was charged by separate informations with two separate escapes, to each of which he pled nolo contendere. The pleas were accepted by the court without first determining on the record that there was a factual basis for the pleas contrary to Rule 3.170(j), F.R.Cr.P. Our previous ruling in Estes v. State, Fla.App.(1st), 294 So.2d 122, is not applicable here as appellant’s pleas were not the result of plea bargaining.

*21Reversed and remanded with directions to vacate the nolo contendere pleas, the judgments and the sentences and to rear-raign appellant.

ON REHEARING GRANTED

Since the filing of this court’s opinion on April 21, 1975, in this cause, we have ruled in Tucker v. State, Fla.App., 316 So.2d 297, opinion filed June 30, 1975 that a factual basis for a plea of nolo con-tendere is not required. Our previous opinion herein is therefore vacated, and the judgments and sentences are affirmed.

RAWLS, C. J., and JOHNSON and McCORD, JJ., concur.