JAMES M. ETLINGER, 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.
Etlinger appeals a partial grant of his motion to correct sentence, which was imposed in 1984 based on now-invalid sentencing guidelines. The court affirmed the trial court's correction, holding that amending the sentence to reflect its non-guideline status and restoring parole eligibility was the only relief warranted.
A defendant is entitled only to have the sentence amended to reflect that it is not a guideline sentence, thereby restoring parole eligibility. The defendant has no right to demand a more generous sentence or a de novo sentencing hearing when the sentence length was accepted as part of a negotiated plea agreement.
[1] A defendant is entitled to have a sentence corrected if it was imposed during a period when the applicable sentencing guideline rule was constitutionally invalid.
[2] When a sentence is corrected due to an invalid sentencing guideline rule, the defendant is entitled to an opportunity to select or reject guidelines sentencing.
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“Here the length of sentence was accepted by the defendant in exchange for other, favorable consideration from the state. Etlinger provides no basis to conclude that the thirty-year figure is invalid per se.”
Establishes that the court will enforce negotiated sentence lengths from plea agreements even when guidelines are later invalidated.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEtlinger received a 30-year sentence on July 26, 1984, after entering guilty pleas to multiple felonies. He specifically agreed to a sentence of 'no m…
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 Minimum Mandatory Term cases and more on FLexlaw
[*724] PER CURIAM.
James Etlinger appeals an order of the circuit court which partially grants and partially denies his motion to correct sentence. We affirm.
Etlinger’s total sentence, which stems from numerous felony charges, is thirty years in duration. It was imposed July 26, 1984, after Etlinger entered pleas of guilty. In so doing Etlinger specifically agreed to a sentence of “no more than thirty years in prison.” It was also stipulated that several sentences requiring a three-year minimum mandatory term, pursuant to section 775.-087(2), Florida Statutes (1983), would run concurrent so that Etlinger would face only three years of mandatory time. Sentencing guidelines, which all parties then assumed were mandatory, recommended a life sentence.
Etlinger’s motion is based upon Smith v. State, 537 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 1989), in which the supreme court held that the sentencing guideline rule applicable to offenses occurring between October 1, 1983, and July 1, 1984, was constitutionally invalid. A defendant receiving a guideline sentence during that hiatus period is entitled to have the sentence corrected. Wahl v. State, 543 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 551 So. 2d 463 (Fla.1989). Etlinger’s motion requests “an opportunity to either select or reject guidelines sentencing.”
The state conceded that Etlinger’s sentence required correction. In response to the motion, the trial court merely amended the existing sentences to reflect that they are not guideline sentences, thereby making Etlinger eligible for parole. Under the circumstances of this case, we believe this correction is all the relief Etlinger is entitled to receive. We distinguish this case from Wahl and from Dupont v. State, 561 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), wherein we held that the trial court was required to conduct a de novo sentencing hearing. Here the length of sentence was accepted by the defendant in exchange for other, favorable consideration from the state. Et-linger provides no basis to conclude that the thirty-year figure is invalid per se. His only options lay between the present, parole-eligible sentence and a guideline sentence of the same duration but without the additional potential for parole. He has no right to demand a sentence any more generous than that which the trial court fashioned in response to the motion.
Affirmed.
RYDER, A.C.J., and DANAHY and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Alphonso P. Smith v. State, 537 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 1989)
- Wahl v. State, 543 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Dupont v. State, 561 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)