DAVID BELL, 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.
David Bell challenged the trial court's summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The court reversed, finding that Bell stated a facially sufficient claim for relief because his plea agreement expressly conditioned his sentence on compliance with sentencing guidelines, and his 30-year sentence exceeded the applicable 1994 guideline range.
The court held that Bell stated a facially sufficient claim for relief because his plea agreement expressly conditioned his sentence on the guidelines. However, on remand, the state has the option to either agree to resentencing or vacate the plea and proceed to trial on the original charges.
[1] A trial court's summary denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence is improper when the motion states a facially sufficient claim for relief.
[2] Improper scoring of a defendant's scoresheet will not render a negotiated plea illegal unless the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum, provided the plea agreement is n…
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“When a negotiated plea agreement is not conditioned upon the imposition of a sentence within a specific guideline range, improper scoring of the defendant's scoresheet will not render the plea illegal unless the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum.”
Establishes the general rule that guideline violations in non-conditioned pleas do not automatically render the plea illegal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn March 19, 1997, Bell pleaded guilty to second-degree murder with a firearm for an offense committed on November 13, 1996, and was sentenced to 30 y…
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 V. State cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges an order of the trial court summarily denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal procedure 3.800(a). We conclude the summary denial was improper and reverse.
On March 19, 1997, the appellant pled guilty to one count of second-degree murder with a firearm. He was sentenced to 30 year’s’ incarceration. The appellant argues that his 30-year sentence was illegally imposed under the 1995 guidelines for an offense committed on November 13, 1996.1 He further alleges that under the 1994 guidelines, his sentencing range would have been limited to 156.3 months to 260.5 months’ incarceration. The appellant sought resentencing under the 1994 sentencing guidelines pursuant to Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000). The trial court denied the motion because the appellant was sentenced pursuant to a negotiated term in accordance with a plea agreement whereby the appellant escaped prosecution for first-degree murder in exchange for a lesser included offense of second-degree murder with a firearm.
When a negotiated plea agreement is not conditioned upon the imposition • of a sentence within a specific guideline range, improper scoring of the defendant’s scoresheet will not render the plea illegal unless the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum. See Dunenas v. Moore, 762 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). However, if a plea agreement is conditioned upon receiving a sentence calculated with reference to the guidelines, and the sentence exceeds the 1994 guideline range, then the defendant is entitled to relief under Heggs. See Jones v. State, 781 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
In this case, the appellant’s plea agreement states that “on the lesser charge of second-degree murder, I will be adjudicated guilty. There will be a sentencing hearing. My sentence will be within my guidelines which are 20.5 years to 34.2 years.... ” (Emphasis supplied.) Thus, the appellant’s agreement reflects that his sentence was conditioned upon the guidelines.
We thus conclude that the appellant has stated a facially sufficient claim for relief. However, the appellant is not entitled to simply be resentenced because his present sentence was the result of a plea bargain in which the appellant was permitted to plea to a lesser charge. On remand, the state shall have the option of agreeing to the resentencing, or else the plea will be vacated and trial will proceed on the original charges. See Williams v. State, 650 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
MINER, WOLF and WEBSTER, JJ., concur. . The window period in which the offense must have been committed runs from October 1, 1995, to May 24, 1997. See Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924 (Fla.2000).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bruno v. State, 837 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…and proceeding to trial on the original charges. Williams v. State, 650 So. 2d 1054, 1055 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).” White v. State, 828 So. 2d 491, 492 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); see also West v. State, 818 So. 2d 637, 638 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Bell v. State, 795 So. 2d 1140, 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Rainey v. State, 741 So. 2d 1207, 1208 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Forshee v. State, 579 So. 2d 388, 389 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Jolly v. State, 392 So. 2d 54, 56 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). III. The motion also alleges that defense couns…
-
Hoag v. State, 801 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…en substantially lower. Hoag argues that his plea was therefore involuntary. We agree. We first note that Hoag’s claim is facially sufficient in that he has alleged that his plea agreement was predicated on a guidelines sentence. See Bell v. State, 795 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Nor is the claim refuted by the record. In fact, the transcript attached by the trial court to refute the claim actually verifies that the plea agreement called for the median guidelines sentence. We therefore reverse and remand…
-
Debord v. State, 802 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…n to correct illegal sentence alleging various scoring errors in his sentencing scoresheet. The trial court denied the motion reasoning that the sentences were the result of a negotiated plea rather than the sentencing guidelines. See Bell v. State, 795 So. 2d 1140, 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Brown v. State, 781 So. 2d 484, 485 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Boerstler v. State, 622 So. 2d 184, 184 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). But, in all but one case, Mr. Debord’s sentences exceeded the statutory maximum for the offenses. See Be…
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)
- Xzavier Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2000)
- Durwin D. Dunenas v. Moore, 762 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Detrick Williams v. State, 650 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Rashan Jones v. State, 781 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)