MELVIN FISHER, 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.
Melvin Fisher appeals the summary denial of his post-conviction motion challenging whether his sentence exceeded the terms of his plea agreement. The court reversed and remanded because the plea agreement's language was ambiguous regarding whether Fisher was entitled to only a three-year mandatory minimum sentence or whether the court had discretion to impose additional incarceration.
The plea agreement is ambiguous and therefore the case must be remanded for either the trial court to attach portions of the record showing Fisher is not entitled to relief or to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the parties' true intent regarding the sentence.
[1] A motion for post-conviction relief is the correct procedural path to challenge a sentence that allegedly exceeds the terms of a plea agreement.
[2] A written plea agreement is ambiguous when its terms regarding the sentence to be imposed are subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.
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“The State of Florida and I have agreed upon the following sentence to be imposed as a condition of this plea: Case Number Offense Sentence... B 90-628-CFA Only one three year mandatory minimum.”
The ambiguous plea agreement language that forms the basis of the dispute regarding Fisher's sentence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFisher entered a nolo contendere plea to one count of trafficking in cocaine and one count of sale of cocaine in exchange for the state agreeing to no…
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 Plea Agreement Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
PETERSON, Judge.
Melvin Fisher appeals the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief under rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. We reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing on the only issue having merit: whether the trial court’s sentence of imprisonment followed by probation was in excess of the sentence agreed upon in the plea agreement. The procedural path chosen by Fisher is correct pursuant to Hadden v. State, 555 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
The state agreed to nol-pros two of the three cases against Fisher in return for his entering a plea of nolo contendere to one count of trafficking in cocaine and one count of sale of cocaine in the remaining case. The inartfully drafted plea agreement states: The State of Florida and I have agreed upon the following sentence to be imposed as a condition of this plea:
Case Number Offense Sentence
K 90-657-CFA Nolle Prosequi
K 90-658-CFA Nolle Prosequi
B 90-628-CFA Only one three year mandatory minimum.
The trial court sentenced Fisher to concurrent, true split-sentences of fifteen years on the two counts — four and one-half years’ incarceration and probation of ten and one-half years. In addition, the court imposed a three-year minimum mandatory and a $50,000 fine. Fisher argues that he should serve only the three-year mandatory sentence set forth in the plea agreement. The state argues that, under the plea agreement, the court had discretion to sentence Fisher within the guidelines and that the sentence meets the guidelines. According to the score sheet, the charges in case 90-628 would have permitted two minimum mandatory periods of incarceration. One is required, however, to speculate whether the agreement calls for only a three-year mandatory minimum sentence or whether it contemplates an unspecified sentence which is to include no more than one three-year mandatory minimum sentence.
Since we conclude that the written agreement is ambiguous, we remand for attachment of those portions of the record showing that Fisher is not entitled to relief or, in the alternative, for an evidentiary hearing.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
GRIFFIN and DIAMANTIS, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shepherd v. State, 652 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…ver page, we remand this cause for a proper attachment of a corrected Exhibit 6A, showing that appellant’s jail credit in case number CR 93-2726 has been corrected to give appellant the proper credit of 72 days jail time. See, e.g., Fisher v. State, 583 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). [*520] AFFIRMED in part; REMANDED for further proceedings. DAUKSCH, PETERSON and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Hadden v. State, 555 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)