ARTIE K. PERKINS, 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.
Artie Perkins appeals the denial of his postconviction relief motion, claiming he did not receive the full benefit of his plea bargain. The court found merit in his claim that his trial attorney and the trial court represented his state sentences would run concurrently with pending federal sentences, but the federal court rejected this arrangement. The court reversed and remanded for resentencing with directions that sentences run concurrently with the federal sentence, or Perkins may withdraw his plea.
The court held that Perkins' claim of not receiving the full benefit of his plea bargain has merit because the trial court accepted the condition of concurrent sentences without objection, and Perkins was not put on notice that the trial court's order would not be binding on the federal court. Perkins must be resentenced with directions that the sentence run concurrently with the federal sentence, or he must be allowed to withdraw his plea.
[1] A plea agreement is involuntary when a defendant relies on counsel's representation and the trial court's pronouncement of concurrent sentences, which are not subsequentl…
[2] A trial court's pronouncement of concurrent sentences, even if not part of a written plea agreement, can form the basis of a claim for an involuntary plea if the defendan…
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“Even though the promise of concurrent sentences was not part of the written plea agreement, the transcript reveals that the trial court accepted the condition requested by defense counsel without objection from the State.”
Establishes that oral promises made during plea colloquy can constitute part of the bargain even if not in the written agreement
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn February 15, 1995, Perkins entered a nolo contendere plea to numerous charges and was sentenced to concurrent ten-year terms as a habitual offender…
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 Concurrent Vs. Consecutive Sentences cases and more on FLexlaw
FULMER, Judge.
Artie K. Perkins appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief. Of the fourteen issues raised, only the claim that Perkins did not receive the full benefit of his plea bargain appears to have merit. The denial of the motion as to that single issue is reversed and remanded with directions.
On February 15, 1995, Perkins entered a plea of nolo contendere to numerous charges. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of ten years’ imprisonment as a habitual offender. Perkins claims that he was advised by his attorney that his state sentences would run concurrently with the sentences to be imposed in a pending federal action. However, the federal court advised Perkins that state court orders are not binding on the federal court and ordered that the federal sentences be served consecutively to the state sentences. Perkins states that, had he known that the state court could not bind the federal court in the manner promised, he would not have entered into the plea agreement.
At the end of the plea colloquy, defense counsel stated that “the court has previously indicated it wouldn’t have any objection if the sentence would ran concurrent with the fed eral matter.” The trial court responded that it had no objection and concluded the sentencing by stating, “Concurrent with whatever federal sentence he receives.”
The State contends that this portion of the plea colloquy merely indicates that the trial court had no objection to concurrent sentences and that the disposition of the federal sentences was not part of the plea agreement. We are not persuaded. Even though the promise of concurrent sentences was not part of the written plea agreement, the transcript reveals that the trial court accepted the condition requested by defense counsel without objection from the State. And, there is nothing in the record to put Perkins on notice that the trial court’s order would not be binding on the federal court. Therefore, Perkins’ statement that he relied upon his counsel’s representation and the trial court’s pronouncement of concurrent sentences is sufficient to support a claim of an involuntary plea and is not refuted by the record.
Since Perkins did not receive the sentence he bargained for, he must be resenteneed with directions that the sentence imposed be served concurrently with the federal sentence. Should this intent not be fulfilled by the resentencing, Perkins must be allowed to withdraw his plea. See Goodwin v. State, 477 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Buss v. Reichman, 53 So. 3d 339 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…man shall remain in the DOC’s custody to complete his Escambia County sentences. Reversed. POLEN, HAZOURI and MAY, JJ., concur. . A state court cannot compel a federal court to make its sentence concurrent with a state sentence. Perkins v. State, 696 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Reichman knew that he was charged with a federal parole violation when he entered the state plea. He did not bring the pending parole violation to the sentencing court's attention or negotiate to have his state sentences run conc…
-
Williams v. State, 710 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…ho states that he would not have entered the plea had he not been promised a concurrent sentence, has stated a prima facie ground for relief and is entitled to a hearing. See Hightower v. State, 650 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Perkins v. State, 696 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Schroeder v. State, 641 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Had Williams filed a timely motion to withdraw his plea in this case, he would have been entitled to a hearing. 2 However, having served his Florida sentence, it is too lat…
-
Rowland v. State, 789 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…fute Rowland’s claims or for an evidentiary hearing. We caution the trial court that the mere attachment of a plea agreement that does not contain provisions as to these issues may not conclusively refute Rowland’s allegations. See Perkins v. State, 696 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (finding written plea agreement alone, with no promises of concurrent sentences, did not conclusively refute defendant’s claim that plea was involuntary when transcript showed trial court agreed to run state sentences concurrent w…
Authorities Cited
- Goodwin v. State, 477 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)