RAUL PELEGRINA, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
Because the plea agreement permitted a sentence at the trial court’s discretion, we affirm the denial of appellant’s motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). However, because it appears from the record that the parties (including appellant and his attorney) may have been under the mistaken impression that the 1995 sentencing guidelines, rather than the 1992, were applicable, and that, pursuant to the latter, the maximum permissible sentence would have been significantly shorter than that imposed pursuant to the former, our affirmance is without prejudice to appellant’s right timely to file a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 seeking to withdraw his plea.
MINER, WEBSTER and LAWRENCE, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Knight v. State, 70 So. 3d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…iled pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, he argued the mandatory minimums were “illegal because the jury failed to make a specific finding that he personally possessed a firearm during the commission of the crime.” Knight v. State, 763 So. 2d 1231, 1232 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (Knight I). The decision noted that the trial court should have considered that claim under rule 3.800(a), and directed the trial court to do so on remand. This Court made no finding on the merits of the appellant’s claim,…
-
Gammon v. State, 858 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…ve indication on the face of the record that the appellant did not possess a firearm, the claim that there was not a factual basis to support the imposition of a firearm mandatory minimum is cognizable in a rule 8.800(a) motion. See Knight v. State, 763 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Valdes v. State, 765 So. 2d 774, 776 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). We therefore reverse the trial court’s summary denial of this claim and remand for further attachment of record portions conclusively refuting the appellant’s claim or…
-
Peterhoff v. State, 890 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…PER CURIAM. We affirm the trial court’s denial of James Peterhoffs motion to correct illegal sentence brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). See Pelegrina v. State, 763 So. 2d 1231, 1231 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Rosa v. State, 742 So. 2d 462, 463 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Affirmed. , BENTON, PADOVANO, and HAWKES, JJ, concur.…