KEDRICK BULL, IV, 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.
Kedrick Bull appeals the denial of his motion to correct an allegedly illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Bull claims he is entitled to resentencing under Heggs v. State because his 117-month sentence exceeds the 1994 sentencing guidelines range, even though he pleaded 'straight-up' with no negotiated sentence. The court reverses and remands for resentencing consideration.
A defendant who pleads 'straight-up' with no negotiated sentence and is sentenced under the 1995 guidelines may be entitled to Heggs relief if the sentence exceeds what could have been imposed under the 1994 guidelines. The trial court must determine on remand whether the sentence could have been imposed under the 1994 guidelines without a departure; if not, the defendant must be resentenced under the 1994 guidelines with any departure supported by written reasons from the original sentencing.
[1] A defendant is not entitled to postconviction relief based on the invalidation of sentencing guidelines if the sentence imposed could have been imposed under prior, valid…
[2] A negotiated plea agreement for a specific term of years, rather than a minimum guidelines sentence, does not entitle a defendant to relief when the imposed sentence is v…
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 intelligence“A defendant who pleads "straight-up" with no negotiated sentence in place and who is sentenced under the 1995 guidelines may be entitled to relief under Heggs.”
Establishes the core legal principle that 'straight-up' pleas without sentence negotiations still qualify for Heggs relief
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBull was originally charged with two counts of committing lewd and lascivious acts upon a child under sixteen years of age during the Heggs window. Th…
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 Departure Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
FULMER, Judge.
Kedrick Bull, IV, appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In his motion, Bull alleged he was entitled to be resentenced pursuant to Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000). Bull was originally charged with two counts of committing a lewd and lascivious act upon a child under sixteen years of age which occurred during the Heggs window. The State dropped one count, and in exchange, Bull entered a “straight-up” nolo contendere plea to the court for the remaining count. Bull claims he was then sentenced to 117 months and 24 days in prison under the 1995 guidelines. He now alleges that sentence exceeds the 1994 guidelines.
The trial court denied relief because Bull pleaded “straight-up” to the court with no promise of a sentence within a specific guidelines range. We reverse the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
A defendant who pleads “straight-up” with no negotiated sentence in place and who is sentenced under the 1995 guidelines may be entitled to relief under Heggs. Trotter v. State, 774 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). In this case, although the State dropped a charge in exchange for Bull’s plea, the State bargained only for the plea, not for a specific sentence. Once Bull pleaded “straight-up,” the trial court had the option to impose any guidelines sentence, or to impose an upward or downward departure (provided the court found evidence that supported a valid reason for departure). See State v. Barnes, 753 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (citing Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.701(d)). Furthermore, the State benefit-ted by no longer bearing the burden of having to prove Bull guilty at a trial. Because the State did not negotiate for the sentence but only the plea, Bull will be entitled to resentencing under Heggs, provided, of course, he can show that he was adversely affected by being sentenced under the 1995 guidelines. See Forshee v. State, 579 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (holding if appellant pleaded guilty without his sentence being part of the plea negotiations, and the court imposed an illegal sentence, that sentence would be reversed on appeal and remanded for imposition of a legal sentence).
We conclude that Bull has stated a facially sufficient claim for Heggs relief. Bull alleged that his sentence of 117 months and 24 days exceeded the 1994 guidelines range of 47.85 to 79.75 months in prison. This allegation, if true, would entitle Bull to resentencing. See Heggs, 759 So. 2d at 627. The trial court failed to attach any documents to refute this claim.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. On remand, the trial court must determine whether Bull’s sentence could have been imposed under the 1994 guidelines without a departure. If so, the trial court may again deny relief, but it shall provide record attachments that conclusively refute Bull’s claim. If Bull’s sentence could not have been imposed absent a departure, he must be re-sentenced pursuant to the 1994 guidelines. Upon resentencing, if the trial court decides to depart from the sentencing guidelines, any departure must be supported by written reasons existing at the time of the original sentencing. Trotter, 774 So. 2d at 925. In no event shall the new sentence exceed the original sentence. Id.
Reversed and remanded.
BLUE, A.C.J., and STRINGER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gena Marie Lawson v. State, 812 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…ng an upward departure sentence. We agree with the Fifth District that once a defendant is resentenced pursuant to Heggs, the second sentencing proceeding is de novo. See Trotter v. State, 801 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Accord Bull v. State, 782 So. 2d 921, 922 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (stating that if a trial court decides to depart from the sentencing [*519] guidelines at a resentencing proceeding under Heggs, the departure must be supported by written reasons existing at the time of the original sentenci…
-
Salter v. State, 804 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…at available under the 1994 guidelines. The trial court denied the appellant’s motion, but failed to attach documents to the record to support its reasoning. Because the appellant has stated a facially sufficient claim for relief, see Bull v. State, 782 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), we REVERSE AND REMAND to the trial court to attach portions of the record which conclusively refute the appellant’s claim or to reconsider the merits of the claim. ERVIN, BARFIELD, and LEWIS, JJ., concur.…
-
Nelson v. State, 870 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…d Nelson to a de novo sentencing hearing. See Trotter v. State, 825 So. 2d 362, 367-68 (Fla.2002). Upon resentencing, the trial court had discretion to impose an upward departure sentence that did not exceed the original sentence. See Bull v. State, 782 So. 2d 921, 922 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). However, any departure must have been supported by written reasons existing at the time of the original sentencing. See id. In this appeal, Nelson argues the reason given for his departure sentence was inappropriate because…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- State v. Barnes, 753 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Chambliss v. State, 579 So. 2d 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Trotter v. State, 774 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)