WILLIAM R. GLENN, 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.
William Glenn, a pro se inmate, appealed the denial of his motion for postconviction relief based on his state court's failure to enforce an agreed-upon condition that his state sentence would run concurrent with his federal sentence by allowing him to serve both in federal prison. The court reversed and remanded, holding that when a guilty plea condition involves concurrent sentencing in federal custody, the defendant is entitled to relief if that condition is not met.
Glenn is entitled to postconviction relief. Where a condition of a guilty 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. The trial court must either vacate the sentence and suspend it in extraordinary circumstances, enter a sentence of time served, or permit the defendant to withdraw his plea.
[1] A defendant is entitled to postconviction relief when a condition of a guilty plea, that the state sentence be served concurrently with a federal sentence, is not met.
[2] A trial court lacks the authority to order the Department of Corrections to permit an inmate to serve a Florida sentence concurrently with a federal sentence through tran…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Where a condition of a guilty 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.”
Establishes the core holding that plea conditions regarding concurrent sentencing in federal custody are enforceable through postconviction relief
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGlenn was sentenced in state court with an understanding that he would serve his state sentence concurrently with his longer federal sentence in feder…
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 Terms cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
William R. Glenn, a pro se inmate, appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
In his motion, Glenn alleged that at his sentencing hearing in state court he advised the court that he had been sentenced to serve 23 years in federal prison with a possible reduction in his sentence for substantial assistance he had yet to provide. Accordingly, Glenn asked the trial court to order his state sentence to run concurrent to his federal sentence and the trial court did so. Glenn’s sentencing records reflect that his state sentences should run concurrent with any active sentence.
Since his sentencing in state court, Glenn learned that he would not be transported to federal prison, but would be required to first serve his state sentence, and then would be transferred to serve his federal sentence. Accordingly, Glenn filed his motion for postconviction relief pursuant to rule 3.850 asking for an order allowing him to proceed to trial.
In the action below, the state responded to Glenn’s motion contending the Department of Corrections, under section 921.16(2), Florida Statutes, is given the discretion to determine the placement of inmates serving sentences from multiple jurisdictions. Moreover, the state maintained that the statute indicates the trial court lacks the authority to order the Department of Corrections to permit an inmate to serve his Florida sentence concurrently with a federal sentence through transfer to a federal prison. See Doyle v. State, 615 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1007, 114 S.Ct. 1376, 128 L.Ed.2d 52 (1994); Schlosser v. Singletary, 597 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).
The trial court, adopting the state’s response, summarily denied Glenn’s motion. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Where a condition of a guilty 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 state prison to first complete his state sentence. The Third District reversed and remanded with directions:
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, 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, or, at the appellant’s option, to enter a sentence of “time served” or simply permit him to withdraw his plea, (citations and footnotes omitted).
Here, where the facts are substantially similar to those considered by the Third District in Taylor, we reverse the trial court’s summary denial of Glenn’s motion and remand for further proceedings consistent with those provided for in Taylor. REVERSED and REMANDED.
DELL, SHAHOOD and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. State, 852 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…. or, at the [defendant’s] option, to enter a sentence of ‘time served’ or simply permit him to withdraw his plea.” Id. at 637 (citations omitted) (footnotes omitted); see also Hutchinson v. State, 845 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Glenn v. State, 776 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Accordingly, the trial court’s “take it or leave it” offer to allow Davis to withdraw his plea and go to trial or be stuck with what are essentially consecutive sentences was not the correct solution to the problem. Unfortunate…
-
Sadler v. State, 980 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…a plea is that a defendant will serve an agreed-upon state sentence in federal prison concurrently with a longer federal sentence, a defendant is entitled to post-conviction relief if the terms of that agreement are not met.” Glenn v. State, [*569] 776 So. 2d 330, 331 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Thus, the issue this Court must decide is whether the trial court’s summary determination that the concurrency agreement was not part of the plea bargain is correct. Based on our review of the sentencing transcript, we agre…
-
Sharrod Rodgers v. State, 76 So. 3d 349 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…ht by Rodgers should not be granted. In response, the State conceded that the allegations in Rodgers’ motion for postconviction relief are facially sufficient, and therefore, the trial court erred by summarily denying the motion. See Glenn v. State. 776 So. 2d 330, 331 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (“Where a condition of a guilty 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 post conviction relief if the t…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Taylor v. State, 710 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Doyle v. State, 615 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Schlosser v. Singletary, 597 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Terrell v. California, 511 U.S. 1007 (U.S. 1994)
- Esparza v. Parole Panel, 511 U.S. 1007 (U.S. 1994)