KENNETH FOLDI, 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.
Kenneth Foldi appealed the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 motion challenging his sentence. The court found the trial court failed to properly enforce the terms of Foldi's plea agreement regarding credit for time served, and reversed and remanded for resentencing or withdrawal of the plea.
The trial court must resentence Foldi in a manner that effectuates the intent of the plea agreement, including the seven-year credit for time served, or alternatively allow Foldi to withdraw his plea. A trial court cannot direct the Department of Corrections' method of calculating credits, but it can resentence to achieve the bargained-for result.
[1] A trial court must resentence a defendant or allow withdrawal of a plea when the Department of Corrections fails to award credit for time served as contemplated by a plea…
[2] A trial court lacks authority to direct the Department of Corrections on how to calculate credits awarded solely to relieve prison overcrowding.
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“We reverse and remand with instructions to the trial court to resentence Foldi in a manner which achieves the intent of the plea agreement or to allow him to withdraw his plea.”
States the core holding that the trial court must enforce the plea agreement or permit withdrawal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFoldi entered into a plea agreement providing for 18 months' incarceration on new charges and 8 years on a probation violation, to run concurrently. 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 Motion To Enforce Plea Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Kenneth Foldi appeals the summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Foldi seeks to enforce the terms of his plea agreement. We reverse and remand with instructions to the trial court to resentence Foldi in a manner which achieves the intent of the plea agreement or to allow him to withdraw his plea. The plea transcript indicates Foldi entered a plea for eighteen months’ incarceration on new charges in case numbers 95-16323 and 95-20174, and eight years’ incarceration on his violation of probation sentence in case number 93-17904. The terms of the agreement were that the sentences of imprisonment would run concurrently with each other and Foldi would receive seven years’ credit for time previously served in case number 93-17904, despite the acknowledged fact that some of that time was forfeitable gain time. The judgment and sentencing documents reflect a notation that the court contemplated the Department of Corrections should apply seven years of credit for previous incarceration against Foldi’s eight-year sentence in ease number 93-17904. Foldi asserts the Department of Corrections has not awarded the full seven years credit on his sentence. The trial court’s order acknowledges the Department of Corrections is not crediting Foldi with any forfeitable gain time. See Bradley v. State, 631 So. 2d 1096 (Fla.1994). Moreover, a trial court is without authority to direct the method by which the Department of Corrections calculates those credits awarded solely to relieve prison overcrowding. Davis v. Singletary, 659 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).
Accordingly, we remand to the trial court to resentence Foldi in a manner which effectuates the intent of the plea agreement, or, if it cannot do so, to allow him to withdraw his plea. Davis, 659 So. 2d at 1127; Erickson v. State, 687 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
Reversed and remanded.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and BLUE and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McALLISTER v. State, 821 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…ppellant to withdraw from his plea. See Martin v. State, 816 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Flowers v. State, 754 So. 2d 65, 66-67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Williams v. Department of Corrections, 734 So. 2d 1132, 1133 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Foldi v. State, 695 So. 2d 886, 887 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). It is clear from the language of these cases that effectuating the plea agreement is proper even though the appellant had no legal entitlement to such gain time since the DOC could declare it forfeited, because the court and…
-
Cowart v. State, 749 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…gain time. Instead, he is raising an issue involving his plea agreement, claiming that he was promised more prison credit by the trial court than the Department is now providing. He either wishes to enforce or withdraw his plea. See Foldi v. State, 695 So. 2d 886 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Davis v. Singletary, 659 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We conclude that a rule 3.800(a) motion is not the proper pleading to raise this factual issue or to provide relief concerning an ambiguous plea agreement. The sentence o…
-
Martin v. State, 816 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…believed it lacked jurisdiction to resentence the appellant without a withdrawal of the plea first taking place. The trial court did, however, have such jurisdiction and authority. Flowers v. State, 754 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Foldi v. State, 695 So. 2d 886 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Davis v. Singletary, 659 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We remand for the trial court to reconsider this matter. If, under the plea bargain, it was the trial court’s specific intent that Martin was to receive a five year state…
Authorities Cited
- L.C. Bradley v. State, 631 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 1994)
- Carlton Davis v. Singletary, 659 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Erickson v. State, 687 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)