JAMES E. GENTILE, 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.
James Gentile appealed the denial of his post-conviction motion challenging his sentencing under a negotiated plea agreement. The appellate court affirmed, holding that because Gentile had agreed to specific sentences as part of his plea deal, scoresheet errors in calculating sentencing guidelines do not render the plea illegal or require relief.
The court held that Gentile is not entitled to relief because his negotiated plea agreement was not conditioned upon imposition of a sentence within a specific guideline range, and scoresheet errors do not render a plea illegal when the defendant agreed to specific sentences. Even if the scoresheet errors were corrected, the sentences would remain proper because they fall within the permitted guidelines range.
[1] A negotiated plea agreement is binding on a defendant despite a scoresheet error when the plea was not conditioned on receiving a sentence within a specific guideline ran…
[2] A scoresheet error is harmless when the scoring was not a factor in the state's decision to offer a plea or in the defendant's and court's decision to accept the plea off…
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 defendant's negotiated plea agreement was accepted by the trial court without any indication that the plea was conditioned upon the imposition of a sentence within a specific guideline range.”
Establishes that the plea was binding regardless of scoresheet errors because it was not conditioned on guideline compliance
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1991, Gentile pleaded guilty to robbery with a firearm and two counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon while on probation for five t…
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 Prior Record Scoring cases and more on FLexlaw
ANTOON, Judge.
James E. Gentile (defendant) appeals the summary denial of his motion seeking post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm.
In 1991, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to one count of robbery with a firearm and two counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. At the time the defendant committed these offenses, he was on probation in four prior cases involving five third-degree felonies. As a part of a plea agreement with the state, the defendant specifically agreed to receive a sentence of fifteen years in prison for each of the new offenses. He also pled guilty to violating his probation, and agreed to receive a sentence of five years in prison for each of the five felonies. The negotiated plea agreement provided that all terms of incarceration would be served concurrently, and that the defendant would serve a three-year mandatory sentence for the robbery with a firearm conviction. The trial court accommodated the defendant by accepting his plea and sentencing him in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement.
On appeal, the defendant argues that he is entitled to receive Rule 3.800(a) relief because the trial court erred in scoring his violation of probation offenses as prior record on his sentencing guideline scoresheet. In this regard, the defendant maintains that the trial court should have scored those offenses as additional offenses at sentencing because the crimes for which he was on probation were committed prior to October 1,1986, the date of the amendment to the committee note to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(5). This amendment provided that crimes for which a defendant is on probation must be scored as prior record. This argument fails to possess merit.
The defendant’s negotiated plea agreement was accepted by the trial court without any indication that the plea was conditioned upon the imposition of a sentence within a specific guideline range. This court, in Russell v. State, 656 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), recently affirmed the defendant’s sentence, despite a scoresheet error, noting that the defendant had agreed to the specific sentence imposed. See also Master v. State, 637 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (departure due to improper scoring does not render plea illegal when plea was not conditioned on receiving guideline sentence); Ash v. State, 624 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (if scoring was not considered in state’s decision to offer plea or in the defendant’s and the court’s decision to accept the plea offer, scoring error is harmless); Boerstler v. State, 622 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (sentence is not illegal due to scoresheet error where plea agreement does not reflect that plea was conditioned on imposition of a specific sentence being within guidelines); Hammond v. State, 591 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (negotiated plea is binding despite scoresheet error and is sufficient to justify departure without written reasons). Moreover, even if the scoresheet errors were corrected as the defendant urges, his sentences would still not be improper departure sentences because the sentences are within the permitted guidelines range.
AFFIRMED.
W. SHARP and THOMPSON, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Durwin D. Dunenas v. Moore, 762 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…al unless the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum. See Skidmore v. State, 688 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). See also, Russell v. State, 656 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)(score-sheet error harmless when based on plea bargain); Gentile v. State, 673 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)(if negotiated plea is not conditioned upon a specific guideline range, any error will be harmless); Boerstler v. State, 622 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)(sentence imposed in accordance with valid plea agreement will not be rende…
-
Legere v. State, 862 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…tence, there is no entitlement to Heggs relief); Hall v. State, 789 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (defendant was not entitled to be resentenced under Heggs where the defendant’s sentence was negotiated independent of guidelines); Gentile v. State, 673 So. 2d 76, 77 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (any scoresheet error is harmless if the negotiated plea was not conditioned upon a specific sentencing guideline); Caples v. State, 790 So. 2d 1143, 1144 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (defendant filed Heggs-like motion based on change…
-
Ivis Suros v. State, 688 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. § 59.041, Fla. Stat. (1995); Gentile v. State, 673 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Arias v. State, 584 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 3d 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
- Boerstler v. State, 622 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Russell v. State, 656 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Hammond v. State, 591 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Master v. State, 637 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- ASH v. State, 624 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)