STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
CHARLES W. CUMMINGS, RESPONDENT
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.
Florida Supreme Court quashed the Second District's affirmance of a guidelines sentence imposed on a prison releasee reoffender, holding that the sentencing act does not violate separation of powers, and remanded with the defendant's right to withdraw his guilty plea because he relied on the trial court's representation that he would not be sentenced under the Act.
The sentencing act applicable to prison releasee reoffenders does not violate separation of powers, and a defendant who entered a guilty plea based on the trial court's representation that he would not be sentenced under the Act has the right to withdraw that plea upon remand.
[1] A defendant who enters a guilty plea in reliance on a trial court's representation that he will not be sentenced under a mandatory sentencing guideline act has the right…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCummings qualified as a prison releasee reoffender and received a guidelines sentence. He had entered a guilty plea based on the trial court's indicat…
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 Guidelines Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review State v. Cummings, No. 99-00519, 1999 Fla.App. LEXIS 11082 (Fla. 2d DCA Aug. 20,1999), in which the Second District affirmed the imposition of a guidelines sentence on a defendant who qualified as a prison releasee reoffender, relying on State v. Cotton, 728 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). In so doing, the Second District acknowledged conflict with Woods v. State, 740 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), and McKnight v. State, 727 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). We have jurisdiction. . See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We recently approved the First District’s decision in Woods, holding that the Act, as properly interpreted by the First District, does not violate separation of powers, and rejecting other constitutional challenges to the Act. See State v. Cotton, Nos. SC94996 & SC95281, — So. 2d -, 2000 WL 766521 (Fla. June 15, 2000). Accordingly, for the reasons expressed in Cotton, we quash the Second District’s decision in this ease, and remand for further proceedings consistent with our opinion in Cotton. Because it appears that the respondent entered a plea of guilty based upon the trial court’s indication that respondent, upon such plea, would not be sentenced pursuant to the Act, upon remand to the trial court, respondent shall have the right to withdraw his guilty plea.
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE and LEWIS, JJ., concur. QUINCE, J., dissents with an opinion.
QUINCE, J.,
dissenting.
I dissent for the reasons stated in my dissent in State v. Cotton, Nos. SC94996 & SC95281, — So. 2d -, 2000 WL 766521 (Fla. June 15, 2000).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Woods v. State, 740 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- McKNIGHT v. State, 727 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Jewell F. Raimondo v. Am. United Life Ins. Co., 728 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- State v. Cotton, 728 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)