CHRISTIAN JAUREGUI, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Appellant challenges his sentence and claims ineffective assistance of counsel following his guilty plea to second-degree murder and armed robbery. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of his petition for writ of certiorari, holding that his sentence was legal, within the plea bargain parameters, and that his guilty plea was voluntary and intelligently entered.
Appellant's sentence is legal and valid. The forty-year and ten-year sentences fall within both the statutory limits and the plea bargain parameters. The guilty plea was voluntary and intelligently entered, and the trial court's plea colloquy and findings regarding counsel's competency refute any claim of ineffective assistance.
[1] A guilty plea generally forecloses appellate review of issues arising prior to the plea, except for those expressly preserved, jurisdictional issues, the legality of the…
[2] A sentence imposed pursuant to a valid plea bargain is legal, even if it exceeds recommended sentencing guidelines, as the plea bargain itself constitutes a valid reason…
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“A guilty plea cuts off inquiry into all issues arising prior to the plea with the exception of issues expressly preserved for appellate review, and issues regarding jurisdiction, legality of the sentence imposed, failure of the state to abide by the plea agreement and the voluntary and intelligent nature of the plea.”
Establishes the limited scope of review available following a guilty plea
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was charged with first-degree murder but entered into a plea bargain pleading guilty to second-degree murder with a weapon and armed robbery…
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 Voluntary And Intelligent Guilty Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
BARKDULL, Judge.
Appellant filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the circuit court which was denied. Appellant sought review of that denial in this court. This court ordered that the petition be treated as an appeal from a denial of collateral proceeding pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm.
Appellant was charged with first degree murder and pursuant to a plea bargain plead guilty to second degree murder with a weapon and armed robbery. Appellant’s plea bargain allowed for a sentence range of thirty to fifty years. The trial court imposed a forty year sentence with no minimum mandatory term on the murder count and a ten year sentence on the armed robbery count. Appellant now protests that his trial counsel was ineffective and that his sentence is excessive because it does not fall within the recommended sentencing guideline range.
A guilty plea cuts off inquiry into all issues arising prior to the plea with the exception of issues expressly preserved for appellate review, and issues regarding jurisdiction, legality of the sentence imposed, failure of the state to abide by the plea agreement and the voluntary and intelligent nature of the plea. Stano v. State, 520 So. 2d 278 (Fla.1988); Elledge v. State, 432 So. 2d 35 (Fla.1983); Robinson v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla.1979).
Appellant’s sentence is a legal sentence. Appellant plead guilty to a life felony, which, pursuant to § 782.04, Florida Statutes, was punishable by a term of years not exceeding forty years or life imprisonment. Appellant also plead guilty to armed robbery pursuant to § 812.13, Florida Statutes, which is a first degree felony punishable by a term of years not exceeding thirty years or life imprisonment. Appellant’s forty year term and ten year term of imprisonment are within the limits proscribed both by law and the plea bargain.1 That appellant’s sentence may exceed the recommended guideline sentence is of no consequence since the plea bargain is in itself a valid reason for imposing a departure sentence. Smith v. State, 530 So. 2d 304 (Fla.1988).
We interpret appellant’s allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel to mean that somehow his plea was not voluntary. Appellant’s plea colloquy2 clearly refutes any claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The trial court not only conducted the standard plea colloquy, but it also made specific findings regarding the level of competency and performance of appellant’s counsel in this case. Based on the record, it is clear that appellant’s plea was voluntary in nature and intelligently entered into.
Accordingly, the trial court’s denial is in all respects affirmed.
Affirmed.
. We note that appellant does not complain that the state has not lived up to its bargain and thus his sentence is somehow illegal. Appellant's bargain allowed for a sentence range of thirty to fifty years, and his sentence does not exceed that cap.
. The trial court properly attached to its well-reasoned order denying appellant’s writ, a copy of the transcript of the hearing at which appellant entered his plea.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Skidmore v. State, 688 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…re v. State, 654 So. 2d 1305 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Kelly v. State, 599 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Gainer v. State, 590 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). This is because a plea bargain is a valid reason for a departure sentence. Jauregui v. State, 652 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). The sentence of thirty years in this case does not exceed the statutory maximum for the first degree felonies to which the defendant pled nolo contendere, so the sentence is not illegal. If a defendant claims that he would not ha…
-
Peterson v. State, 752 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…oresheet in the record indicates the parties stipulated to an upward departure sentence, pursuant to a negotiated plea because the defendant, Peterson, had engaged in a “crime spree.” A plea bargain is a valid ground for departure. Jauregui v. State 652 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); State v. Jordan, 630 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). In addition, the sentence which Peterson received does not exceed the statutory maximum for the crimes to which he entered his guilty plea. See State v. Moten, 698 So. 2d 13…
-
Gonzalez v. State, 954 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See State v. Williams, 854 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Jauregui v. State, 652 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).…
Authorities Cited
- Gissendanner v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1979)
- Robinson v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1979)
- Stano v. State, 520 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1988)
- Elledge v. Graham, 432 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 1983)
- Kropff v. Dep't OF Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles, 530 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 1988)