ALBERT BRIGHT, 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 appellant's sentence constituted an invalid upward departure from the sentencing guidelines because the plea agreement did not reflect an agreement to such a departure.
Appellant pleaded guilty to multiple charges and was sentenced to eighteen years, exceeding the maximum guidelines sentence of 208.125 months. The low…
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 Upward Departure Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant complains on appeal of the refusal of the lower court to allow him to withdraw his plea and he contends that he was given an improper upward departure sentence. We find no merit in appellant’s first argument; however, it does appear that appellant’s sentence is an invalid departure.
Appellant’s maximum allowable sentence under the guidelines was 208.125 months. The lower court, by stacking the minimum mandatories on six of appellant’s charges, sentenced the appellant to a total of eighteen years (216 months). It appears from the record that it was recognized below that this sentence constituted an upward departure. It also appears to have been the view of the lower court that this departure had been agreed to by appellant as part of his plea agreement. Although the colloquy during the course of the plea is not crystal clear, we cannot find in it an agreement to an upward departure sentence.
The agreement was that, in exchange for his plea to the many pending cases against him, the state would agree to recommend a guidelines sentence totalling twelve years. It was also plainly agreed, however, that if appellant, who had requested to be released on his own recognizance pending sentencing, did not appear as scheduled for his sentencing, then the state’s recommendation of a twelve-year guideline sentence would be withdrawn. In other words, it is clear that appellant was fully aware that, by failing to appear for sentencing as scheduled, he would forfeit any right to the twelve-year sentence recommendation, but the record does not reflect that he agreed to an upward departure should he fail to appear. Since the plea agreement is the only arguable basis for an upward departure in this case, the departure sentence of eighteen years must be vacated and the cause remanded for a sentence to be imposed that falls within the guidelines range.
SENTENCE VACATED and REMANDED.
DAUKSCH, HARRIS and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bareis v. State, 708 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…684 So. 2d 278, 279 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), we concluded that the phrase, “any lawful sentence” in a plea agreement referred to a guidelines sentence, not the statutory maximum. This court recently considered a factually similar case, Bright v. State, 679 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), and held the plea agreement had to expressly provide that the defendant agreed to an upward departure sentence if he failed to appear. This one did not. I would reverse and remand for imposition of a guidelines sentence. . The…1 / 2
-
Rackley v. State, 755 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…qualify him as an habitual felony offender. Thus the trial court never had the opportunity to consider that motion and the appellant failed to preserve for review the issue of breach of the plea agreement. The appellant argues that Bright v. State, 679 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), supports his contention that the sentence was erroneous and should be set aside. [*835] However, that case is clearly distinguishable from the instant case. In Bright, the issue was properly preserved for review because the defe…