RICHARD SALAZAR, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed denial of motion to correct illegal sentence where defendant's double jeopardy challenge to convictions for possession and sale of the same cocaine was barred because he knowingly waived such objection by entering into a plea agreement.
A defendant who knowingly enters a plea agreement concerning both charges and sentences waives any double jeopardy objection to convictions arising from the same conduct.
[1] A defendant who knowingly enters a plea agreement concerning both charges and sentences waives any double jeopardy objection to convictions arising from the same conduct.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRichard Salazar was convicted and sentenced based on a plea agreement for possession and sale of the same cocaine. He moved to correct his sentence ar…
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 Double Jeopardy Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
On Motion for Rehearing
The appellant’s motion for rehearing is granted. We withdraw our previous opinion dated April 3, 1996 and substitute the following:
We affirm the trial court’s denial of Richard Salazar’s motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. Defendant contends that the plea upon which his convictions and sentences were based was for possession and sale of the same cocaine, thus violating double jeopardy. The double jeopardy argument Salazar advances in this ease is a challenge to his convictions, not sentences, and thus is not cognizable under the rule regarding motions to correct illegal sentences. Wiley v. State, 604 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Nevertheless, even if we construe the motion as one seeking post-conviction relief, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, the defendant would still not be entitled to a remedy. The general rule is that a defendant who knowingly enters a plea agreement concerning both the charges and sentences waives any double jeopardy objection. The exception to that rule, being inapplicable to the instant facts, need not be addressed herein. See Novaton v. State, 634 So. 2d 607 (Fla.1994) (finding an exception to general rule when (a) the plea is a general plea as distinguished from a plea bargain; (b) the double jeopardy violation is apparent from the record; and (c) there is nothing in the record to indicate a waiver of the double jeopardy violation).
Accordingly, we affirm the order under review.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Coughlin v. State, 932 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…Coughlin’s convictions, rather than his sentences, and is therefore not cognizable under rule 3.800(a). See, e.g., Plowman v. State, 586 So. 2d 454, 456 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Henry v. State, 920 So. 2d 1204, 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Salazar v. State, 675 So. 2d 654, 655 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); State v. Spella, 567 So. 2d 1051, 1051 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Ferenc v. State, 563 So. 2d 707, 707 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Because this rule is well established in Florida, we would typically affirm the postconviction court’s ord…
-
Skidmore v. State, 688 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…Furthermore, the double jeopardy claims may not be raised by a 3.800 motion, see Hopping v. State, 674 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); White v. State, 644 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), as they are cut off by the entry of the plea. Salazar v. State, 675 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Finding no error, we affirm. Affirmed. . The defendant was charged with burglary of a structure, robbery, two counts of aggravated bat-teiy, unlawful possession of a firearm while engaged in a criminal offense, kidnapping an…
-
Lopez v. State, 2 So. 3d 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…is illegal, without regard to the underlying conviction.”). The authorities for this principle of law are legion. See, e.g., Henry v. State, 920 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Walker v. State, 940 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Salazar v. State, 675 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Plowman v. State, 586 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); State v. Spella, 567 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Ferenc v. State, 563 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Because Appellant’s claim that his convictions violate double jeopard…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Novaton v. State, 634 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 1994)
- Wiley v. State, 604 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)