CAIN EMMANUEL DELL, 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.
The court held that the trial court properly denied the motion for postconviction relief because the appellant did not allege misinformation and the court lacked power to modify the sentence.
Appellant sought postconviction relief, alleging he would not have pleaded guilty if he knew his sentences would not be concurrent. The plea agreement…
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 Plea Agreement Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges an order by which his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief was summarily denied. We affirm.
While appellant alleged that he would not have entered into the plea if he had known his sentences would not be concurrent, he did not allege that anyone misinformed or misled him as to what his sentence would be. In fact, the only evidence in the record before this court clearly shows that the plea agreement was for precisely what he got — a recommendation that the sentences be concurrent.
To the extent appellant asked the court below to modify his sentence, the court is without power to grant the modification of sentence appellant sought. Appellant’s motion was made more than 60 days beyond entry of the sentence. See Rule 3.800(c). Appellant tries to shoehorn his case into the situation that existed in Bruce v. State, 679 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) and Kirkland v. State, 633 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), but there is nothing in the record in this case to indicate the court entered a recommendation in this case because it believed it lacked the authority to enter a mandate. The plea agreement in this case clearly shows that the agreement was for a recommendation that the sentence run concurrent with the parole violation, not a mandate or guarantee.
MINER and WOLF, JJ., and SHIVERS, Senior Judge, CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Melton P. Bookout v. State, 728 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…[*772] PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Dell v. State, 705 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). JOANOS, MINER and DAVIS, JJ., CONCUR.…
Authorities Cited
- Bruce v. State, 679 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Kirkland v. State, 633 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)