REGINALD BYRD, 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.
Reginald Byrd appealed the denial of his motions to withdraw his plea and vacate his sentence in two cases. The court reversed, finding that the trial court failed to ensure Byrd was aware of maximum and mandatory minimum penalties before accepting his guilty plea, used an incorrect sentencing guidelines scoresheet that improperly included habitual offender offenses, and failed to award credit for time spent in a state hospital.
The trial court erred in all three respects. A court must determine on the record that a defendant is aware of both the maximum possible penalty and any mandatory minimum penalty before accepting a guilty plea. The sentencing guidelines scoresheet must be corrected to remove the improperly included habitual offender offenses and the dismissed firearm charge. The trial court must determine what credit Byrd is entitled to for time spent in a state hospital.
[1] A trial court must determine on the record that a defendant is aware of the maximum possible penalty and any mandatory minimum penalty before accepting a guilty or nolo c…
[2] A sentencing scoresheet is incorrect if it includes habitual offender offenses as primary and additional offenses at conviction.
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“Before a court may accept a guilty or nolo plea it must determine on the record that the defendant is aware of the 'maximum possible penalty provided by law' that may be imposed for the crime.”
Establishes the constitutional requirement for plea acceptance and the error in this case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceByrd entered a guilty plea in Case No. 90-575 without the trial court determining on the record whether he was aware of the maximum or mandatory minim…
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.
Reginald Byrd appeals two judgments and sentences challenging the denial of his motion to withdraw plea and motion to vacate sentence, the use of a sentencing guidelines seoresheet which includes habitual offender offenses as primary and additional offenses at conviction, and the trial court’s failure to award Byrd credit for the time he spent in a state hospital. We reverse.
The trial court erred in denying Byrd’s motion to withdraw plea and motion to vacate sentence in Case No. 90-575. At the time Byrd entered his plea, the trial court failed to determine whether Byrd was aware of the maximum penalty or the mandatory minimum penalty. “[Bjefore a court may accept a guilty or nolo plea it must determine on the record that the defendant is aware of the ‘maximum possible penalty provided by law* that may be imposed for the crime.” Ashley v. State, 614 So. 2d 486, 488 (Fla.1993). See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.172(e)(1); Green v. State, 406 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), affirmed, 421 So. 2d 508 (Fla.1982). The defendant must also be made aware of any mandatory minimum penalty. Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.172(c)(1); Green v. State, 406 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), affirmed, 421 So. 2d 508 (Fla.1982). Consequently, we reverse. On remand, Byrd may withdraw his plea.
Byrd correctly argues and the state concedes that the sentencing guidelines seoresheet used in Case No. 91-350 was incorrect in that it included habitual offender offenses as primary and additional offenses at conviction. Alloway v. State, 593 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Wyche v. State, 576 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). The seoresheet also inaccurately listed a count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, despite the dismissal of that charge. A corrected seoresheet results in a lower recom mended sentence and permitted sentence. We reverse the sentence in Case No. 91-350 and remand for resentencing with a corrected scoresheet. On remand the trial court may consider whether a departure sentence is appropriate. Roberts v. State, 547 So. 2d 129 (Fla.1989). See Alloway v. State, 593 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
Byrd and the state also agree that the sentences in both cases should be remanded for a determination of credit for the time Byrd spent in a state hospital. Tal-Mason v. State, 515 So. 2d 738 (Fla.1987) (defendant entitled to credit for pre-conviction detention in a mental institutional for incompetence to stand trial). Accordingly, we remand for such a determination.
REVERSED.
ALLEN, KAHN and MICKLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shana Thornton v. State, 747 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…rstands” the matters enumerated in the rule. For these reasons, we reverse and remand to the trial court, where appellant shall be given an opportunity to withdraw her plea. See Coban, 520 So. 2d at 41-42; Green, 421 So. 2d at 509-10; Byrd v. State, 643 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Because we have decided the case on the deviations from the rules of criminal procedure, we do not reach another issue raised by appellant — that the trial court was without jurisdiction to impose sentence. The judge who accept…
-
Loic Gadson v. State, 807 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…was not advised of the maximum possible sentence, and he would not have entered the plea had he known of the maximum possible sentence. This claim is facially sufficient, see Rodriguez v. State, 645 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), and Byrd v. State, 643 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), and the record portions relied upon by the circuit court do not conclusively refute that claim. [*818] The order denying the motion, therefore, is reversed and the case is remanded for an evidentiary hearing or for attachment of…
-
Sheffield v. State, 214 So. 3d 763 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…mary or additional offense on the guidelines score-sheet. See Olsen v. State, 791 So. 2d 558, 560 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Drayton v. State, 744 So. 2d 584, 585-86 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Alexander v. State, 680 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Byrd v. State, 643 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Eaddy v. State, 626 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Ricardo v. State, 608 So. 2d 93, 94-95 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Silliker v. State, 598 So. 2d 133, 134 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Wyche v. State, 576 So. 2d 884, 886 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).…
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
- Ashley v. State, 614 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1993)
- Doyal Powell Roberts v. State, 547 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 1989)
- Tal-Mason v. State, 515 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 1987)
- State v. Green, 421 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 1982)
- Green v. State, 406 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Wyche v. State, 576 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Alloway v. State, 593 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)