LEE GREENE, JR. 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.
Lee Greene was convicted of drug offenses and sentenced to prison followed by probation. After violating probation by committing additional crimes, he was resentenced in violation of his plea agreement. The appellate court reversed and remanded for resentencing to comply with the original plea agreement terms.
The court held that the trial court's sentences violated the defendant's approved plea agreement. The defendant was entitled to credit for the three and one-half years previously served in prison. However, the trial court retained the authority to impose a two-cell bump-up for the probation violation upon remand, despite the plea agreement, because the defendant was convicted of six additional substantive offenses.
[1] A court must allow a defendant to withdraw their plea if the court decides to deviate from the terms of a plea agreement.
[2] A defendant is entitled to credit for time previously served in prison when resentenced to a guidelines sentence for the same charges.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 judge is not bound to honor the plea, but he must give the defendant the right to withdraw the plea if he decides to deviate from its terms.”
Establishes that trial courts must allow plea withdrawal if they deviate from plea agreement terms
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGreene was originally convicted of unlawful sale, purchase or delivery of a controlled substance (Case 92-1152) and sentenced to three and one-half ye…
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 Terms cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIFFIN, Judge.
Lee Greene, Jr. [“defendant”] was convicted of the unlawful sale, purchase or delivery of a controlled substance in Cáse Number 92-1152. He was sentenced to three and one-half years in the Department of Corrections, to be followed by six and one-half years’ probation. After serving the inearcer-ative portion of his sentence, and embarking on his probation, he was charged with a number of additional substantive offenses. In particular, he was charged with dealing in stolen property and failure to appear (Case No. 94-1907) and four counts of the unlawful sale of cocaine (Case Nos. 95-619, 95-620, 95-622, and 95-623).
He was also charged with violating his probation in Case Number 92-1152 by committing each of these new substantive offenses. After pleading nolo contendere to all of these offenses, defendant was sentenced to five and one-half years in prison for violating his probation in Case Number 92-1152, with credit for 239 days served. He was also sentenced to forty-nine months in prison on each of the charges involved in Case Number 94-1907, all sentences to run concurrently. With o respect to each of the remaining cases, defendant was sentenced to fifteen years’ probation, to run consecutive to the sentences imposed in Case Numbers 92-1152 and 94-1907.
We agree with defendant, and the state has conceded, that defendant’s sentences violate his plea agreement, which was approved by the court. Upon accepting defendant’s plea to these charges, the court stated:
I have indicated to your attorney that I will give you a Guidelines sentence of incarceration on one charge. The remaining charges, you’ll be placed on probation consecutive to the incarceration. The judge is not bound to honor the plea, but he must give the defendant the right to withdraw the plea if he decides to deviate from its terms. Goins v. State, 672 So. 2d 30 (Fla.1996); Harnage v. State, 680 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).
We also agree with defendant that to the extent he is sentenced to a guidelines sentence in case number 92-1152, he will be entitled to credit for the three and one-half years previously served in prison on these charges. Tripp v. State, 622 So. 2d 941 (Fla.1993); Rouse v. State, 643 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).
We do not agree, however, that the trial judge cannot impose a two-cell bump-up.for the violation of probation if on remand he chooses to do so, since defendant was convicted of a total of six additional substantive offenses in five separate cases, each of which were charged as violations. Williams v. State, 594 So. 2d 273 (Fla.1992); Freed v. State, 658 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).
REVERSED and REMANDED for resentencing in accordance with this opinion.
DAUKSCH and ANTOON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Peeples v. State, 719 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…s plea. Here, there was no written agreement, and even by defense counsel’s best characterization, there was only an agreement to recommend a certain sentence, which itself was based on what was clearly an incorrect point total. Cf. Greene v. State, 686 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) and Harnage v. State, 680 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) where in both cases it appears that the trial court had concurred in the plea, agreement, but later concluded that it could not go along with it. In both cases, the defenda…
Authorities Cited
- Tripp v. State, 622 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 1993)
- Williams v. State, 594 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 1992)
- Kit Goins v. State, 672 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 1996)
- Rouse v. State, 643 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Freed v. State, 658 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Harnage v. State, 680 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- Blohm v. Sch. Bd. OF Seminole Cnty., 680 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)