WILLIAM GOODWIN, 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.
William Goodwin appeals the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief after he pled guilty to armed robbery in Florida based on a plea bargain requiring his sentence to run concurrently with a New Jersey sentence. The court reversed because the State failed to honor the plea agreement when New Jersey imposed consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences.
The court reversed Goodwin's judgment and sentence and remanded with directions to permit him to withdraw his guilty plea or be resentenced within the parameters of the original plea agreement, because the agreed bargain between Goodwin and the State of Florida has not been carried out.
[1] A guilty plea induced by a broken plea bargain may be withdrawn.
[2] A defendant is entitled to withdraw a guilty plea when the agreed-upon sentence parameters of the plea bargain are not met.
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“It is clear, however, that the agreed bargain between Goodwin and the State of Florida has not been carried out.”
Establishes the core issue that the plea agreement was breached by the State
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGoodwin pled guilty to 44 counts of robbery in New Jersey on November 24, 1981, with sentencing postponed. He was then sent to Florida where he pled g…
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
PER CURIAM.
William Goodwin seeks review of the summary denial of his motion for post conviction relief which he filed pursuant to Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.
On November 24, 1981, Goodwin pled guilty to forty-four counts of robbery in New Jersey. Sentencing was postponed. In the meantime, Goodwin was sent to Florida where he pled guilty to charges of armed robbery. This plea was made pursuant to a plea bargain in which the state agreed that if he pled guilty, any sentence he received would run concurrent to the sentence he would receive upon his return for sentencing in New Jersey. Goodwin was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to twenty years in prison to run concurrent with the sentences he would receive in New Jersey. When Goodwin was sent back to New Jersey, however, the New Jersey court sentenced him to ninety-five years in prison to run consecutive to the twenty years he received in Florida. He was then sent back to Florida to finish serving the Florida sentence.
On March 14, 1985, Goodwin filed a motion for post conviction relief. The sentencing judge denied this motion. It is clear, however, that the agreed bargain between Goodwin and the State of Florida has not been carried out.
The second district was faced with a strikingly similar factual situation in Richardson v. State, 432 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). The court stated:
Appellant herein agreed to plead on the mistaken assumption that his Florida sentence would be served concurrently with time imposed in New Jersey. Since he did not receive the sentence for which he originally bargained and was not informed of the impossibility of carrying out that sentence, the interests of justice mandate that he be given the opportunity to withdraw his plea.
Id. at 751.
As in Richardson, Goodwin has not received the sentence he bargained for. Accordingly, we reverse his judgment and sentence and remand this cause to the trial court with directions to permit Goodwin to withdraw his guilty plea or be resentenced within the parameters of the plea agreement. See Davis v. State, 473 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Alvis v. State, 421 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DOWNEY and BARKETT, JJ., concur. DELL, J., dissents without opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fambro v. State, 581 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
-
State v. Cooper, 510 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…not receive the sentence which he expected and to which the judge had agreed, we not only reverse the trial court’s departure below the guidelines, but we also remand with instructions to permit the defendant to withdraw his plea. Goodwin v. State, 477 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). REVERSED AND REMANDED. DOWNEY and DELL, JJ., concur. . This encompasses all charges arising from both criminal cases here consolidated.…
-
Artie K. Perkins v. State, 696 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…ined for, he must be resenteneed with directions that the sentence imposed be served concurrently with the federal sentence. Should this intent not be fulfilled by the resentencing, Perkins must be allowed to withdraw his plea. See Goodwin v. State, 477 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings. DANAHY, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ellis Richardson v. State, 432 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Alvis v. State, 421 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Carroll v. Magnaflux Corp., 473 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Davis v. State, 473 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)