THOMAS E. HINTON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Appellant Hinton was resentenced from 10 years to life imprisonment after the state successfully moved to vacate his original plea bargain based on counsel's allegedly false representation about a codefendant's plea offer. The court held that once a defendant begins serving a legal sentence, it cannot be increased, and vacated the life sentences as violative of double jeopardy.
Once a defendant begins to serve a legal sentence, the court has no authority to resentence him to a longer term. The original 10-year sentences were legal and could not thereafter be increased, and the life sentences violate double jeopardy protections. The life sentences are vacated and the original 10-year sentences are reinstated.
[1] A court cannot resentence a defendant to a longer term of imprisonment once the defendant has begun to serve a legal sentence.
[2] A plea bargain accepted under false pretenses may be invalidated.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Once a defendant begins to serve his sentence, the court has no authority to resentence him to a longer term of imprisonment.”
Establishes the core holding that a court lacks authority to increase a sentence once the defendant is serving it
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHinton pled guilty to two counts of armed robbery under a plea bargain for 10 concurrent years. The court accepted the bargain based on defense counse…
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 False Representation cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Judge.
Appellant complains that the court erred in vacating his earlier sentences and in resentencing him to longer terms.
Appellant pled guilty to two counts of armed robbery pursuant to a plea bargain under which he would be sentenced to ten years in prison. The court’s acceptance of the bargain was premised on defense counsel’s statement that he believed appellant’s codefendant had been offered a plea bargain for ten years. At that time the court and the assistant state attorney seemed to agree that this was a correct representation. Appellant was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to two concurrent terms of ten years imprisonment.
Subsequently, the state filed a motion to vacate appellant’s plea . and sentence alleging that defense counsel's representation as to the length of time offered to the codefendant was untrue. The state contended that the plea bargain was invalid because it was accepted under false pretenses. Over appellant’s objection, the court granted the state’s motion. The court found as a matter of fact that acceptance of the plea bargain had been the result of false representations made inadvertently by defense counsel. The court offered the appellant a choice either of going to trial or entering a new plea-based on correct representations.
Appellant subsequently entered pleas of nolo contendere to the armed robbery charges, reserving the right to appeal the court’s ruling on the motion to vacate. Appellant was sentenced to two concurrent terms of life imprisonment.
The fifth amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 9, of the Florida Constitution both provide that no person shall be put in jeopardy more than once for the same criminal offense. This court has previously held that resentencing on the same charge is a violation of double jeopardy. Katz v. State, 335 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); see also United States v. Benz, 282 U.S. 304, 51 S.Ct. 113, 75 L.Ed. 354 (1931); Troupe v. Rowe, 283 So. 2d 857 (Fla.1973). Once a defendant begins to serve his sentence, the court has no authority to resentence him to a longer term of imprisonment. Beckom v. State, 227 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969).1
In appellant’s case, the original ten-year sentences were legal sentences which could not thereafter be increased. Accordingly, the two life sentences are hereby vacated, and the case is remanded for reinstatement of the original sentences.
BOARDMAN, A.C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur. . It should be noted that Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 allows a court at any time to correct an illegal sentence or within certain prescribed times to reduce a legal sentence. The rule does not authorize the increase of a legal sentence. Royal v. State, 389 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (26 total)
-
Dailey v. State, 575 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…do so [*239] would constitute an unauthorized enhancement. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 provides for reduction or modification of sentences, but there is no provision for subsequent enhancement of a legal sentence. See, Hinton v. State, 446 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Royal v. State, 389 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). Affirmed in part and remanded in part for correction of sentence. HALL and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.…
-
Evans v. State, 675 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…v. Rowe, 283 So. 2d 857 (Fla.1973). It is clear that once sentence is imposed, jeopardy attaches, and appellant cannot be resentenced to a greater term of imprisonment. Such a sentence would constitute double jeopardy. Id.; see also Hinton v. State, 446 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Macias v. State, 572 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). In Hill v. State, 652 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), the trial court failed to orally pronounce a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence for the defendant as an habitual violent…
-
Johnson v. State, 574 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…ationer and, hence, one which poses no former jeopardy problem relating to twice sentencing a defendant as to "the same offense." . See Troupe v. Rowe, 283 So. 2d 857 (Fla.1973); Donald v. State, 562 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Hinton v. State, 446 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).…
Previewing 3 of 26 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Benz, 282 U.S. 304 (U.S. 1931)
- Flazell Troupe v. The Honorable Ellen Morphonios Rowe & the Honorable Paul Baker, 283 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 1973)
- Elliot Katz v. State, 335 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Royal v. State, 389 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Beckom v. State, 227 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)