STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
GERALD IRVIN WHITEHEAD, 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.
The court held that the resentencing was improper because the initial sentence would not have been a departure under the 1994 guidelines.
Defendant pleaded nolo contendere to a sentence of 149.8 months, the bottom of the guidelines, after plea negotiations. He later sought resentencing u…
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 Resentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIFFIN, J.
This is another Heggs resentencing appeal. This time it is the State who complains. We reverse.
During the trial of defendant, Gerald Whitehead [“defendant”], while the jury was deliberating and the judge was considering a mistrial, plea negotiations took place. The judge asked for the specific number of months that the prosecutor was offering, and the prosecutor said, “everything is 150, 149.8.” The judge said that was the bottom of the guidelines and the defendant should consider accepting this plea, rather than taking the chances of a conviction and being sentenced as a habitual felony offender. After the judge’s explanation, the defendant decided to plead nolo contendere and “take the bottom of the guidelines.” He was sentenced pursuant to the plea agreement to 149.8 months.
Defendant then filed a direct appeal, which we per curiam affirmed. On September 19, 2000, defendant filed a Motion to Correct Sentence, arguing that he should be resentenced based on the supreme court’s decision in Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000). Over the State’s objection, defendant was resentenced to ninety-six months imprisonment, the bottom of the 1994 guidelines. The judge stated:
[B]ased on the facts of this case and the transcript, it seems clear to the Court it was a quid pro quo in his agreement that the Defendant would change a plea and plea [sic] no contest or guilty, provided he got the bottom of the guidelines.
We reverse because the sentence defendant received initially would not have been a departure under the 1994 guidelines. This case is controlled by the court’s deci sion in Dudek v. State, 783 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
COBB and PALMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Mason Dudek v. State, 783 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)