DONALD ARTHUR FUTCH, 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 defendant who entered a negotiated plea under the unconstitutional 1995 guidelines, but whose sentence was not a departure under the 1994 guidelines, may file a motion challenging the voluntary nature of his plea.
[1] A defendant sentenced under an unconstitutional version of sentencing guidelines is not entitled to relief if the sentence imposed was not a departure under the prior, co…
[2] A defendant who entered into a negotiated plea to the bottom of the unconstitutional version of the 1995 guidelines, but whose sentence was not a departure under the 1994…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDonald Futch challenged the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing he was sentenced under unconstitutional 1995 guidelines. His …
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 Heggs Window cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Donald Arthur Futch challenges the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Procedure 3.800(a) in which he alleged that he was sentenced under an unconstitutional version of the 1995 guidelines. As the trial court acknowledged in its order, Futch’s offenses fell within the Heggs window; however, the sentences imposed were not a departure under the 1994 guidelines, and Futch is not entitled to relief. See Gonzales v. State, 779 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
Futch’s sworn motion also contained a claim that his plea was involuntary based on the discrepancy in the sentencing range between the 1994 sentencing guidelines and the unconstitutional version of the 1995 guidelines.1 The trial court denied this claim stating that because Futch’s sentence was not illegal, he was not entitled to withdraw his plea.
Futch entered into a negotiated plea in which he received a below guidelines sentence under the unconstitutional version of the 1995 guidelines. In Murphy v. State, 773 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (en banc), we held that a defendant who entered into a negotiated plea to the bottom of the unconstitutional version of the 1995 guidelines, but whose sentence was not a departure under the 1994 guidelines, may file a rule 3.850 motion challenging the voluntary and intelligent nature of his plea. In the present case, neither Futch nor the trial court had the benefit of Murphy.
Accordingly, we affirm the order of the trial court without prejudice to any right Futch might have to file a timely and legally sufficient rule 3.850 motion challenging the intelligent and voluntary nature of his plea. Any forthcoming rule 3.850 motion filed pursuant to Murphy shall not be considered successive, and Futch may include the claim that he raises in his present motion concerning the voluntariness of his plea.
Affirmed.
PARKER, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT and SALCINES, JJ., concur. . Futch's maximum sentence under the 1995 guidelines was almost double what it was under the 1994 guidelines.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gallego v. State, 782 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…PER CURIAM. We affirm the trial court’s order without prejudice to defendant filing a timely and legally sufficient Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion, that shall not be considered successive. Futch v. State, 781 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Pagliaro v. Penske Auto Ctrs., Inc., 773 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Gonzales v. State, 779 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)