MELVIN COWART, 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.
A motion to correct an illegal sentence under Rule 3.800(a) is not the proper vehicle to challenge a plea agreement or seek enforcement or withdrawal of a plea based on alleged misrepresentations regarding sentencing credit.
The defendant pleaded guilty pursuant to a negotiated agreement where he claims he was promised a specific net sentence, including 5 years of credit. …
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 Sentencing Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Melvin Cowart appeals the denial of his postconviction motion to correct an illegal sentence, which he filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm because Mr. Cowart must address this issue with a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
Mr. Cowart entered into a negotiated plea agreement concerning a violation of probation in this case in January 1999. The written plea agreement, although not clear on its face, appears to support Mr. Cowart’s claim that he was promised a sentence of 8/£ years’ imprisonment, with 5 years’ credit for prior prison time, i.e., a net sentence of years’ imprisonment. The actual sentence is an 8)é-year term of imprisonment with a check in the box for prison credit. Mr. Cowart’s motion states that the Department of Corrections has given him substantially less credit than 5 years, apparently because the Department has forfeited some of his gain time.
The order on appeal instructs Mr. Co-wart to address his gain time issues to the Department. Although that general advice may be correct, we are inclined to believe that Mr. Cowart’s issue does not involve a calculation of 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 on review is facially legal. Accordingly, we affirm without prejudice to Mr. Cowart’s right to file a timely motion pursuant to rule 3.850.
Affirmed.
ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and WHATLEY and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Catlin v. State, 929 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…f Appellant’s rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence is affirmed, without prejudice to raise the claim of a violation of the plea agreement in a legally sufficient motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Cowart v. State, 749 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Lee v. State, 637 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). STEVENSON, C.J., STONE and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.…
-
Frierson v. State, 114 So. 3d 980 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…t as alleged by the appellant.1 Only the trial court can correct the written sentencing documents to properly reflect the accepted plea agreement, if they are deficient. See Jones v. State, 931 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (citing Cowart v. State, 749 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (claim that defendant was promised more prison credit by trial court than DOC is now providing should be raised pursuant to rule 3.850 as motion either to enforce or withdraw his plea)). Accordingly, we reverse the order on appea…
-
Jones v. State, 931 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…days), the Defendant may pursue the action by way of a writ of mandamus in the appropriate forum. At the outset, we note that Jones’ motion is in substance a motion for relief [*284] under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Cowart v. State, 749 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (claim that defendant was promised more prison credit by trial court than DOC is now providing should be raised pursuant to rule 3.850 as motion either to enforce or withdraw his plea). See also Rogers v. State, 864 So. 2d 521 (Fl…
Authorities Cited
- Carlton Davis v. Singletary, 659 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Foldi v. State, 695 So. 2d 886 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)