CEDRIC BERNARD DANIELS, PETITIONER/APPELLANT,
v.
HONORABLE GILBERT A. SMITH, CIRCUIT JUDGE OF THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, RESPONDENT/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.
Cedric Daniels appeals the summary denial of his post-conviction motion challenging consecutive mandatory minimum sentences imposed after his guilty plea. The court reverses and remands, holding that Daniels is entitled to a hearing to determine whether the three firearm offenses arose from a single transaction under Palmer v. State, which prohibits stacking mandatory minimums for offenses from a single transaction.
The court reverses the summary denial and remands for the trial court to determine whether the three firearm offenses arose from a single transaction as defined in Palmer. If they did, Daniels is entitled to either withdraw his plea or, with state agreement, have the mandatory minimums run concurrently rather than consecutively.
[1] The rule announced in Palmer v. …
[2] A defendant moving for post-conviction relief based on an allegedly illegal sentence must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“We have previously held that Palmer may be applied retroactively.”
Establishes that the Palmer rule prohibiting stacking of mandatory minimums for single-transaction offenses applies to cases decided before Palmer was handed down.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1981, Daniels pleaded guilty to multiple criminal charges, including three firearm offenses that triggered mandatory three-year minimum sentences u…
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 Retroactivity Of Judicial Decisions cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Chief Judge.
Cedric Daniels appeals the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief. We reverse.
In 1981, Daniels entered a plea of guilty to a number of criminal charges. Three of the offenses involved the use of a firearm, necessitating the imposition of three-year mandatory minimum sentences pursuant to section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes (1981). Daniels received a total sentence of ten years, with the three-year minimum sentences running consecutively. In his motion to vacate or correct sentence, Daniels claimed that this “stacking” of minimum mandatories was improper under Palmer v. State, 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1983).
We have previously held that Palmer may be applied retroactively. Cisnero v. State, 458 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). See also Moore v. State, 464 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). The trial court, denying Daniels’ motion, attached a copy of the plea colloquy. From a review of this transcript, it appears that the offenses in question could have arisen from a single transaction, as that term is employed in Palmer. If so, Daniels has presented a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief.
Upon remand, assuming that the trial court’s findings confirm that the charges arose from a single transaction, the question will not be whether Daniels is entitled to relief so much as what relief he should receive. Daniels’ sentence was the result of a plea agreement that took into consideration the likelihood of consecutive mandatory minimum sentences. Additionally, a fourth felony charge appears to have been dropped to a misdemeanor while in another unrelated case, a charge of robbery with a firearm was reduced to robbery with a deadly weapon. Neither the state nor the defense (nor the trial judge, in approving the plea bargain) can be faulted for not anticipating the decision in Palmer. Daniels has asked that the consecutive mandatory minimum sentences simply be set aside. We decline to recommend this disposition without affording the prosecution an opportunity to be heard. When a plea bargain to an illegal sentence is entered, with all parties mistakenly believing the sentence is legal, the proper remedy is to permit the defendant to withdraw the plea if he so desires. Forbert v. State, 437 So. 2d 1079 (Fla.1983). Britt v. State, 352 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). The state may exercise the option of adopting the same plea bargain with the illegality corrected, but it is not absolutely required to do so. Forbert; Cleveland v. State, 394 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
We remand this case to the trial court with directions to determine whether the three-year mandatory minimum sentences do, in fact, stem from a single transaction. If the trial court concludes that they do not, and again denies the motion for post-conviction relief, Daniels must file a notice of appeal within thirty days to obtain further appellate review.1 If, on the other hand, the trial court agrees that a single transaction is involved, Daniels should be afforded the opportunity to withdraw his plea or, if the state is agreeable, the court may simply direct that the minimum man-datories shall run concurrently.
Reversed.
OTT and LEHAN, JJ., concur. . A denial of Daniels’ motion should be substantiated either by a hearing or the attachment of sufficient record excerpts.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Porter v. State, 737 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…on the attempted robbery, the State may elect to set aside the plea, if the corrected sentence deprives it of the benefit of the plea bargain, after which the State would be free to pursue a conviction for first-degree murder. See Daniels v. Smith, 478 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. PATTERSON, A.C.J., and FULMER and NORTHCUTT, JJ., Concur.…
-
Lewis v. State, 502 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…ory portion of the second sentence. However, we stop short of imposing such deletion as an express requirement. Although Lewis’ motion does not specify whether his plea was the result of an agreement with the state, we note that in Daniels v. Smith, 478 So. 2d 110 (Pla. 2d DCA 1985), the movant had entered into a plea bargain that took into consideration the likelihood of consecutive minimum mandatory sentences. Like Lewis’ sentence, the plea in Daniels occurred prior to the Palmer decision. Then, after Palme…
-
Dewayne KEY v. State, 549 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…s may violate Palmer v. State, 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1983), the record presently before us is not sufficient for this court to make that determination. Again, appellant may raise this issue via Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Daniels v. Smith, 478 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Affirmed. SCHEB, A.C.J., and HALL and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dean v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1983)
- Forbert v. State, 437 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 1983)
- Cleveland v. State, 394 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Tiodoso Cisnero, III v. State, 458 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Britt v. State, 352 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Coleman Music & Games & Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Burton, 464 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)