BUSH WADE HOLLAND, 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 Florida Supreme Court reviewed a First District Court of Appeal decision affirming denial of post-conviction relief in a DWI manslaughter case, addressing whether erroneous sentencing guidelines calculations can be corrected post-conviction when the sentence results from a plea bargain. The Court held that while erroneous guidelines calculations can be raised post-conviction, no error existed here because the sentence departure was justified by the valid plea bargain.
Although erroneous guidelines calculations can be raised by post-conviction motion, Holland's guidelines were not improperly calculated because the sentence departure from the guidelines was justified by the valid plea bargain that resulted in the nol-pros of one count. The restitution and split sentence issues were either without merit or procedurally barred as they could have been raised on direct appeal.
[1] An erroneous calculation in a sentencing guidelines scoresheet can be raised in a motion for post-conviction relief.
[2] A plea bargain can constitute a valid reason for a departure sentence from the sentencing guidelines.
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“Clearly, an erroneous guidelines calculation can be raised by a motion for post-conviction relief. Chaplin. However, upon consideration, we now conclude that there was not an erroneous calculation in this case.”
Establishes that while erroneous guidelines calculations are cognizable post-conviction, Holland's calculation was not erroneous
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBush Wade Holland was charged with DWI manslaughter, manslaughter, leaving the scene of an accident, and driving with a suspended license. Pursuant to…
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 Sentencing Guidelines Scoresheet cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Holland v. State, 485 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), because of apparent conflict with State v. Chaplin, 490 So. 2d 52 (Fla.1986). Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. Bush Wade Holland was originally charged with DWI manslaughter (Count I), manslaughter (Count II), leaving the scene of an accident (Count III), and driving with a suspended or revoked license (Count IV). Pursuant to a plea agreement, Count II was nol-prossed. Holland pled nolo conten-dere to the remaining three counts and was sentenced to twelve years in prison to be followed by three years probation on Count I, five years probation on Count III, and one year probation on Count IV, to run consecutively. He was also ordered to make restitution. There was no appeal from the judgment and sentence.
Holland subsequently filed a 3.850 motion alleging that he was entitled to post-conviction relief on the following grounds: (1) the improper guidelines scoring of six teen points for an additional offense at conviction when that charge had been nol-prossed; (2) the imposition of an excessive split sentence; and (3) the ordering of restitution without a hearing on the restitution issues. The trial court found this motion to be facially deficient and denied it without a hearing. The district court of appeal affirmed, finding that Holland’s argument regarding restitution was without merit and that the other two issues were procedurally barred because they could have been raised on direct appeal. Although the district court recognized that in Chaplin this Court determined that trial courts may correct erroneous calculations in a sentencing guidelines scoresheet at any time, it distinguished the instant case from Chaplin by noting that Holland’s sentence was the result of a plea bargain.
Holland’s contention of an erroneous guidelines calculation is based on the fact that prior to the plea hearing, a sentencing guidelines scoresheet had been prepared which reflected that Holland fell into the seven to twelve years prison range. Had a new scoresheet been prepared after the plea was accepted, the recommended range would have been three to seven years because of the nol-pros of Count II. Thus, Holland asserts that with respect to the crimes of which he was convicted, the guidelines were improperly computed.
Clearly, an erroneous guidelines calculation can be raised by a motion for post-conviction relief. Chaplin. However, upon consideration, we now conclude that there was not an erroneous calculation in this case. The only reason the guidelines range ultimately fell below Holland’s sentence was because of the elimination of Count II which was part of the plea bargain. If the sentence is considered a departure from the guidelines, the plea bargain constituted a valid reason for the departure. Bell v. State, 453 So. 2d 478 (Fla.2d DCA 1984); Key v. State, 452 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).
We note that Holland has made no allegation of ineffective counsel. There is a suggestion in the file that he may have accepted the plea bargain to avoid the pos-sibmty of receiving a departure sentence which exceeded the guidelines, but we express no opinion on this.
As the opinion below does not conflict with Chaplin, we deny the petition for review.
It is so ordered.
McDonald, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Domingo Antonio Madrigal v. State, 545 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…ew denied, 519 So. 2d 988 (Fla.1987); State v. Collins, 482 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) (no abuse of judicial discretion in sentencing below guideline sentence where state had agreed to downward departure in a plea bargain); see Holland v. State, 508 So. 2d 5, 6 (Fla.1987) (“If the sentence is considered [an upward] departure from the guidelines, the plea bargain constituted a valid reason for the departure.”). We are able to discern no difference between the guidelines situation, in which the prosecutor…
-
R.C. Stewart v. State, 511 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…f counsel cognizable in a 3.850 motion. We agree with the State that the type of error complained of by appellant is [*377] not a simple computational error, and, thus, Chaplin and Whitfield do not apply to this case. Compare also Holland v. State, 508 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1987). As was true in Lomont, and as is evidenced in Crigler, this issue is one that could or should have been objected to at sentencing and made the subject of a direct appeal, and is therefore not cognizable on motion for post-conviction reli…
-
Hosmer v. State, 523 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bell v. State, 453 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- State v. Chaplin, 490 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 1986)
- KEY v. State, 452 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Bush Wade Holland v. State, 485 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)