DANIEL WARREN WILLIAMS, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court remanded for a hearing to determine whether the defendant was improperly induced to plead guilty by a promise that his state sentence would run concurrently with his federal sentence, which the federal government could not honor.
A defendant may be entitled to withdraw a guilty plea if he was induced to enter it by promises of concurrent sentencing that could not be performed.
[1] A guilty plea may be withdrawn when the defendant was induced to enter it by promises of concurrent sentencing that the government cannot perform.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams pleaded guilty after being promised his state sentence would run concurrent with his federal sentence, but after sentencing he was placed in …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Concurrent Vs. Consecutive Sentences cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
Appellant filed a petition for writ of ha-beas corpus which we have elected to treat as a full appeal. Hollingshead v. Wainwright, 194 So. 2d 577 (Fla.1967); Baggett v. Wainwright, 229 So. 2d 239 (Fla.1969). The principle issue is whether the appellant was induced to enter his guilty plea by promises which could not be performed. It appears from the record the appellant was promised he would serve his time on the sentence in this case concurrent with the time he was then serving on a federal sentence. It also appears the federal government does not have custody of appellant but he began serving time in our state prison after his plea and sentence in this case even though he had been serving the federal time just before he was brought up for the plea in this case. The record indicates the federal government is not counting the time appellant is serving in the state prison and therefore he may have been improperly induced to enter his plea and may be allowed to withdraw his plea and go to trial.
This matter is remanded to the trial court for hearing to determine whether appellant was improperly induced to enter his plea when he was assured his state time would run concurrent with the federal time he was serving at the time he was sentenced in this case.
REMANDED for further proceedings.
MOORE, JOHN H., II and LETTS, GAVIN K., Associate Judges, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Baggett v. Louie L. Wainwright, 229 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1969)
- Cleveland Hollingshead v. Louie L. Wainwright, 194 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 1967)