RICHARD ELBERT, 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.
Richard Elbert appeals the denial of his postconviction motion after his sentence was amended to include a mandatory three-year minimum provision that was not part of his original plea agreement. The court held that because the sentence modification violated the terms of his plea, Elbert must be given the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea.
The court held that although the trial court was correct that the three-year mandatory minimum sentence for armed burglary involving a firearm is not discretionary, Elbert entered his plea in reliance on the trial court's offer of a twenty-five-year sentence and therefore must be given an opportunity to withdraw his plea.
[1] A defendant must be given the opportunity to withdraw a guilty plea when a mandatory minimum sentence is imposed that was not part of the original plea agreement.
[2] A trial court errs by failing to offer a defendant the opportunity to withdraw their plea when the sentence imposed differs materially from the plea agreement due to the…
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“Elbert entered his plea in reliance on the trial court's offer of a twenty-five-year habitual offender sentence; therefore, Elbert must be given an opportunity to withdraw his plea.”
The court's holding that a plea made in reliance on a specific sentence can be withdrawn when that sentence is materially changed.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceElbert entered a written plea agreement on March 29, 1995, for a twenty-five-year sentence as a habitual felony offender for four burglaries. At sente…
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 Opportunity To Withdraw Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Richard Elbert appeals the order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Although Elbert raised numerous grounds for relief, the only meritorious issue concerns the trial court’s failure to give Elbert the opportunity to withdraw his plea because the addition of the three-year minimum mandatory provision changed the sentence so that it was not in accordance with his plea agreement.
On March 29, 1995, Elbert entered into a written plea agreement for a specific sentence of twenty-five years in prison as a habitual felony offender with an adjudication of guilt to four burglaries, one of which was an armed burglary. The transcript of the plea colloquy on March 29 does not include any mention of a firearm or any minimum mandatory sentence. At the April 4 sentencing hearing the trial court imposed the agreed-upon sentence of twenty-five years in prison with credit for time served. The transcript of the April 4 hearing contains no mention of a firearm or a minimum mandatory provision.
At a hearing the next day, the State asserted that the armed burglary involved a firearm, which would require the court to impose a three-year minimum mandatory sentence pursuant to section 775.087(2), Florida Statutes (1993), but the prosecutor neglected to include that information on the guidelines scoresheet. The State requested that the court amend the judgment and sentence accordingly. Elbert did not personally appear at the April 5 hearing, but his attorney represented that he had explained the law to Elbert, that Elbert was “not happy about it,” and would like the court not to impose the three-year minimum.
The trial court stated that it had no choice and then amended the judgment and sentence to include the minimum mandatory provision. The factual basis described at the plea hearing indicates that Elbert stole a .357 pistol and bullets from a residence and that the firearm was recovered in the front yard where Elbert was arrested. Section 775.087(2) clearly applies under these circumstances. See Williams v. State, 517 So. 2d 681 (Fla.1988).
While the trial court is correct that the imposition of the three-year minimum mandatory sentence for armed burglary involving a firearm is not discretionary, the record shows that Elbert entered his plea in reliance on the trial court’s offer of a twenty-five-year habitual offender sentence; therefore, Elbert must be given an opportunity to withdraw his plea. See State v. Ferguson, 691 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to allow Elbert to withdraw his plea. The trial court’s order is affirmed as to all other claims raised in the motion. .
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
PARKER, C.J., and BLUE and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Zenun Spahalic v. State, 837 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…Spahalic’s acknowledgment that he and his attorney discussed the maximum and minimum penalties. Imposition of the three-year minimum mandatory sentence was not optional for the crime to which Spahalie pleaded. See § 775.087(2)(a); Elbert v. State, 705 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); State v. Sesler, 386 So. 2d 293, 294 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). Based on the record before us, we affirm the denial of relief; however, our denial is without prejudice to any right that Spahalic may have to file a timely, facially suffi…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 517 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 1988)
- State v. Ferguson, 691 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)