CHRISTOPHER JAY TAYLOR, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Taylor entered a guilty plea with an agreed understanding that his seven-year state sentence would run concurrent to a longer federal sentence he would serve in federal prison. However, he was transported to and is now serving the sentence in state prison, violating the plea bargain. The court reversed the denial of post-conviction relief and ordered the trial court to vacate the sentence and provide appropriate remedies.
The court held that Taylor is entitled to 3.850 relief from the sentence due to the violation of the plea bargain. The appropriate remedy is for the trial court to vacate the sentence and either suspend it under extraordinary circumstances, enter a sentence of time served, or permit Taylor to withdraw his plea, while Taylor remains subject to his federal sentence.
[1] A violation of a plea bargain, where the defendant is not sentenced as agreed, entitles the defendant to post-conviction relief.
[2] A trial court cannot order the Department of Corrections to allow a defendant to serve a state sentence in federal custody.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Despite the understanding of all parties to the appellant's entry of a guilty plea that he would serve the agreed seven year sentence in federal prison concurrent to a longer federal sentence, Taylor was in fact transported to and is now serving the sentence in state prison. This violation of the plea bargain obviously entitles the defendant to 3.850 relief from the sentence”
Establishes that the plea bargain violation regarding where the sentence would be served constitutes grounds for post-conviction relief.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTaylor entered a guilty plea with an understanding among all parties that he would serve a seven-year sentence in federal prison concurrent to a longe…
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 Specific Performance Of Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
Despite the understanding of all parties to the appellant’s entry of a guilty plea that he would serve the agreed seven year sentence in federal prison concurrent to a longer federal sentence, Taylor was in fact transported to and is now serving the sentence in state prison. This violation of the plea bargain obviously entitles the defendant to 3.850 relief from the sentence, see State v. Leroux, 689 So. 2d 235 (Fla.1996); Booker v. State, 693 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Turner v. State, 689 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Williams v. State, 618 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Coward v. State, 547 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Richardson v. State, 432 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). We therefore reverse the denial of that relief below.
Perhaps the more difficult question is the appropriate procedural means available to effect the parties’ agreement by granting the defendant what in essence is the specific performance of the contract to which we think he is entitled. State v. Frazier, 697 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Kirkland v. State, 633 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
Because, under Doyle v. State, 615 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), review denied, 629 So. 2d 132 (Fla.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1007, 114 S.Ct. 1376, 128 L.Ed.2d 52 (1994), the trial court cannot order the Department of Corrections to allow the defendant to serve his state time in federal custody,1 we conclude it is appropriate that the trial court forthwith vacate the sentence already imposed and provide instead either that the sentence be suspended under the rule that this may be permitted in extraordinary circumstances like these, Helton v. State, 106 So. 2d 79 (Fla.1958), quoting from Bateh v. State, 101 So. 2d 869, 874 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)(suspension of sentence permitted for unspecified “good and valid reasons”), cert. discharged, 110 So. 2d 7 (Fla.1959), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 826, 80 S.Ct. 74, 4 L.Ed.2d 69 (1959); see also § 775.14, Fla. Stat. (1997), or, at the appellant’s option, to enter a sentence of “time served” or simply permit him to withdraw his plea.2 In any case, Taylor is subject to the federal sentence by way of a surrender to the federal detainer which, we are told, is now in effect.
Reversed, vacated and remanded with directions.
. Doyle states that the trial court may recommend that this be permitted. In this case, the trial judge eventually did so, but without response from the D.O.C.
. Taylor’s choice of remedy may he influenced by the fact that under the controlling federal law, it is very possible that he will not receive credit on his federal sentence for the time served in state custody. Rodriguez v. United States, 405 F. 2d 857 (5th Cir.1969), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 914, 89 S.Ct. 1762, 23 L.Ed.2d 228 (1969); Sanders v. McGuire, 405 F. 2d 881 (5th Cir.1968).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Pearson v. Moore, 767 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…reement with him as to sentence, which the sentencing judge effectuated. If these allegations are true, the state presumably took no appeal because it recognized it was bound by a contract on which it had no intention to renege. Cf. Taylor v. State, 710 So. 2d 636, 637 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Knight v. State, 611 So. 2d 602, 603 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). DOC cannot undo a bargain the state attorney’s office has struck. At issue is the separation of powers between the judicial and executive branches. See, e.g., Wilson…
-
Glenn v. State, 776 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…ty plea is that the defendant will serve the agreed-upon state sentence in federal prison concurrently with a longer federal sentence, the defendant is entitled to postconviction relief if the terms of the agreement are not met. See Taylor v. State, 710 So. 2d 636, 637 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). In Taylor, as in the case at bar, where it was the understanding of all the parties that the defendant would serve his state sentence in federal prison concurrent with his longer federal sentence, he was transported to stat…
-
Davis v. State, 852 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…y with a federal sentence is really only a recommendation. Doyle v. State, 615 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 629 So. 2d 132 (Fla.1993), and cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1007, 114 S.Ct. 1376, 128 L.Ed.2d 52 (1994). The court in Taylor v. State, 710 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), formulated the appropriate remedy to resolve this problem when it held that the trial court should “forthwith vacate the sentence already imposed and provide instead either that the sentence be suspended ... or, at the [defendant…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (20 total)
- State v. Leroux, 689 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 1996)
- State v. Mussa C. Bateh, 110 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 1959)
- Mussa C. Bateh v. State, 101 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- Helton v. State, 106 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 1958)
- State v. Frazier, 697 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Ellis Richardson v. State, 432 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Silver v. Dunbar, 395 U.S. 914 (U.S. 1969)
- McClelland v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 914 (U.S. 1969)
- Kirkland v. State, 633 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- In re Citroen, 361 U.S. 826 (U.S. 1959)