JAMES LATALIAN, 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.
James Latalian challenged his probation violation sentence after the sentencing guidelines scoresheet used at his original sentencing was invalidated by Heggs v. State. The court granted relief and resentenced him, but the Fourth District reversed and remanded because Latalian had entered a plea agreement for a low-end sentence, requiring the trial court to either honor that agreement or allow withdrawal.
The court reversed and remanded, holding that if Latalian entered a plea agreement for a low-end sentence on his probation violation, the trial court must either apply that agreement to the new sentencing guidelines range or allow the defendant to withdraw from the plea agreement and proceed to trial.
[1] A sentence imposed under an invalidated sentencing guideline scheme is illegal and subject to correction.
[2] A defendant is entitled to relief when their sentence exceeds the maximum allowed under a subsequently validated sentencing guideline scheme.
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“the court granted appellant's motion to correct the illegal sentence, finding that appellant was entitled to relief under Heggs, and ordered a new sentencing hearing”
Describes the trial court's initial relief grant
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLatalian pled no contest to lewd acts with a child and received 21 months in prison plus five years probation. In 1996, he admitted violating probatio…
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 Illegal Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
SHAHOOD, J.
Appellant pled no contest to committing a lewd act in the presence of a child on or about January 1, 1995 to January 14, 1996, and was sentenced to 21 months in prison followed by five years of probation. In 1996, he admitted violating his probation by committing another lewd, lascivious or indecent act. The court used the 1995 version of the sentencing guidelines, which showed a minimum of 53.8 months in prison and a maximum of 89.7 months. Appellant was sentenced to 54 months in prison. The court noted on the scoresheet that this was a “guideline sentence low end of the guidelines.”
In July 2000, appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that his sentence was based on a score-sheet which had since been invalidated by the supreme court in Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000).1 As a result, appellant sought immediate release. The trial judge ordered the Department of Corrections to prepare a new scoresheet using the 1994 version of the sentencing guidelines. Under the new scoresheet, appellant’s sentence range was between 31.3 and 52.2 months.
The state conceded that the 54 month sentence which appellant had received on the violation exceeded the maximum sentence under the new scoresheet, which was 52.2 months in prison. The court granted appellant’s motion to correct the illegal sentence, finding that appellant was entitled to relief under Heggs, and ordered a new sentencing hearing. Appellant was re-sentenced to 52 months in prison for the violation of probation. This appeal follows.
Appellant argues here that in 1996 he entered into the plea agreement on the condition that his sentence be, as the trial judge noted on the scoresheet, at the low end of the sentencing guidelines. He maintains, therefore, that, in re-sentencing him for the violation of probation, the trial court should have given him a “low-end” sentence, i.e., a sentence closer to 31.3 months than 52 months.
The state agrees that, if appellant entered a plea agreement to his violation of probation for a low-end sentence, the case should be remanded to either allow the state to agree to the new “bottom of the guidelines” sentence, or withdraw from the plea agreement and take appellant to trial. See Buckingham v. State, 771 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). We agree that this is the better course. Thus, we vacate appellant’s sentence, and remand this cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DELL and GUNTHER, JJ., concur. . Such a claim must be raised in a sworn postconviction motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Jenkins v. State, 111 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). We hold that the state waived that requirement by allowing this case to proceed to resentencing without objection.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Peyton Honeycutt v. State, 805 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…bottom of the [*988] guidelines sentence, the state can either agree to the new “bottom of the guidelines” sentence, or withdraw from the plea agreement and take Honeycutt to trial. See Latiif v. State, 787 So. 2d 834 (Fla.2001); Latalian v. State, 786 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Buckingham v. State, 771 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. STONE, FARMER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.…
-
Velton L. Edwards v. State, 793 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…rial court was voluntariness. Therefore, although fundamental error is generally not available to cure unpreserved evidentiary error (admission of statement at trial), we decline to sua sponte impose a preservation issue here. See Latalian v. State, 786 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); State v. Osvath, 661 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).…
-
Szymanowski v. State, 870 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…exchange for their plea. See Honeycutt v. State, 805 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (remanding for further proceedings where defendant alleged that he entered into a plea agreement for a minimum 1995 guidelines sentence); see also Latalian v. State, 786 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (vacating appellant’s sentence and remanding for further proceedings where appellant initially received a minimum 1995 guidelines sentence, but upon Heggs re-sentencing appellant received an almost identical sentence except it wa…
Previewing 3 of 5 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)
- Buckingham v. State, 771 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)