JAMES SIDELL, 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.
Sidell appeals the summary denial of his postconviction motion for sentence correction under Heggs v. State, which declared the 1995 sentencing guidelines unconstitutional. The court affirmed the denial because Sidell's sentence resulted from a negotiated plea agreement, but preserved his right to file a motion to withdraw the plea and invoke Heggs relief.
Although Sidell would be entitled to Heggs relief because his sentence constitutes a departure under the 1994 guidelines, relief is not automatic when the sentence resulted from a negotiated plea agreement. The State is entitled to choose between agreeing to vacation of both judgment and sentence for retrial on original charges, or agreeing to vacation of only the excessive sentence while the judgment stands.
[1] A defendant is entitled to resentencing relief under Heggs v. …
[2] A negotiated plea agreement is binding on the state only if it is binding upon the defendant.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“If the plea agreement is not binding upon the defendant, then it is not binding upon the state.”
Establishes the principle that plea agreements bind both parties equally, preventing unilateral withdrawal of benefits.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSidell pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, false imprisonment, fleeing and eluding, resisting arrest without violence, and battery. Under the negoti…
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 Negotiated Plea Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Judge.
James Sidell timely appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief. We affirm.
Sidell pleaded guilty to four counts of aggravated assault, false imprisonment, fleeing and eluding, resisting arrest without violence, and battery. As part of a negotiated plea, Sidell agreed to a sentence of 181.2 months in prison, which was the middle of the 1995 guidelines, and the State agreed to reduce a kidnapping charge to false imprisonment. In his post-conviction motion, Sidell alleged that he was entitled to be resentenced pursuant to the supreme court’s opinion in Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000) (declaring 1995 sentencing guidelines unconstitutional for single-subject violation), because his sentence constituted a departure under the 1994 guidelines. Although Sidell cited Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, his motion only sought sentence correction.
After considering a 1994 scoresheet prepared by the State, the trial court found that Sidell’s sentence under the 1995 sentencing guidelines “exceeded the permitted range” under the 1994 guidelines, thus entitling Sidell to relief. The trial court denied relief, however, because Si-dell’s sentence was the result of a negotiated plea.
Sidell would be entitled to Heggs relief because his sentence constitutes a departure under the 1994 guidelines. This relief is not automatic, however, because the State gave up something as part of the plea agreement. “If the plea agreement is not binding upon the defendant, then it is not binding upon the state.” Jolly v. State, 392 So. 2d 54, 56 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). See also Gibson v. State, 772 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (reversing improper prison releasee reoffender sentence on direct appeal but remanding for State to have option of requiring plea withdrawal or seeking resentencing only).
[D]ue to the fact that a post-conviction motion may be raised and ruled upon years after imposition, the state may no longer have the witnesses and other evidence necessary to pursue a trial after a defendant successfully has his judgment and sentence vacated. Therefore, in a situation involving a reduction of sentence in contravention of the plea bargain, the state should be given the option of either agreeing that both the judgment and sentence should be vacated and taking the defendant to trial on all original charges, or agreeing that only the excessive sentence should be vacated, while having the judgment stand and allowing the defendant to be resentenced in accordance with the principles enunciated in North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969). Jolly, 392 So. 2d at 56 (parallel citations omitted).
Because Sidell did not ask to withdraw his plea, we affirm the denial of his motion to correct sentence. This affir-mance is without prejudice to Sidell’s right to file an appropriate motion under rule 3.850 to withdraw his plea. If he does, in accordance with Jolly, the trial court shall give the State the option of accepting a sentence that does not constitute a departure under the 1994 guidelines or requiring the withdrawal of the plea. If the plea agreement is abrogated, Sidell may face the original charges. See Geiger v. State, 532 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Sidell has two years from the date of the Heggs decision to raise this claim. See Murphy v. State, 773 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (en banc).
Affirmed.
PATTERSON, C.J., and FULMER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Salim Kamau Latiif v. State, 787 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 2001)…under the 1994 guidelines, or withdrawing from the 'plea bargain and taking appellant to trial.”). We agree with the holdings of these district courts. In so doing, we adopt the rationale recently advanced by the Second District in Sidell v. State, 787 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001): [The appellant] would be entitled to Heggs relief because his sentence constitutes a departure under the 1994 guidelines. This relief is not automatic, however, because the State gave up something as part of the plea agreement.…
-
Yawn v. State, 788 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…Affirmed. Yawn may file a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion pursuant to Sidell v. State, 787 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), and it shall not be considered successive by the trial court. GREEN, A.C.J., and STRINGER and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.…
-
Blocker v. State, 968 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…a plea agreement must seek to withdraw his plea pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, thus providing the [*693] State the opportunity to also withdraw from the agreement if it objects to the resentencing. See, e.g., Sidell v. State, 787 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). . We recognize that, at least in this district, the procedure for rule 3.800(a) occasionally requires a very limited evidentiary determination. We allow a defendant to challenge a habitual offender sentence at any time on the al…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (U.S. 1969)
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Pagliaro v. Penske Auto Ctrs., Inc., 773 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Jolly v. State, 392 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Geiger v. State, 532 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Gibson v. State, 772 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)