PHILLIP TROTT, 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.
The court held that the defendant's sentence, though exceeding the guidelines, was legal because it was agreed upon and within the statutory maximum.
[1] A defendant may agree to be sentenced in excess of the guideline range as part of a plea agreement.
[2] A sentence is illegal if it imposes a mandatory term not agreed to by the defendant and for which the defendant does not qualify.
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 intelligenceThe defendant previously appealed his sentence as a habitual violent felony offender. The court now considers his argument that habitual offender trea…
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 Guidelines Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, Chief Judge.
Phillip W. Trott makes his return engagement to this court.1 On his first appearance, he contended, successfully, that it was error to sentence him as though he was an habitual violent felony offender. We agreed that his negotiated plea only justified habitual offender (not habitual violent felony offender) treatment and, in any event, that the Texas conviction did not meet the statutory definition of an habitual violent felony offender. Therefore, we held that the sentence as agreed to was illegal and, remanded to remove the mandatory fifteen-year portion of the sentence.
Now Trott urges that since the supreme court in State v. Johnson, 616 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1993), held that the statute permitting an out-of-state conviction to be counted as one of the qualifying convictions for habitual offender consideration was, for the relevant time period, unconstitutional, any habitual offender treatment for him would be illegal. He, therefore, suggests that we must remand so that he can be properly sentenced under the guidelines. He must mean within the guideline range.
We find that Trott was properly sentenced under his agreement and affirm the trial court. In order to limit a potentially much greater sentence, Trott agreed to be sentenced to “a guideline sentence with habitual offender treatment.” In other words, he agreed to be sentenced in excess of the guideline range. Such an agreement is legal. Quarterman v. State, 527 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 1988). His earlier sentence was illegal, not because it exceeded the guideline range, but because it imposed a mandatory term only justified by habitual violent felony treatment which he did not agree to and for which he was not qualified.
The twenty-seven-year sentence imposed in this case, although it exceeds the guideline range, is within the statutory maximum authorized for the offense involved. It is a legal sentence; it was agreed to and it is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH and GOSHORN, JJ., concur. . See Trott v. State, 579 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Johnson, 616 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1993)
- THE Florida BAR v. Mullins, 527 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 1988)
- Trott v. State, 579 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)