DERRICK D. WALKER, 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.
Appellant's Rule 3.850 motion challenging his concurrent sentencing was properly denied because the plea agreement did not specify federal prison housing, only concurrent sentencing, and appellant failed to allege loss of concurrent sentence benefits.
A plea agreement providing for concurrent state and federal sentences does not guarantee housing in federal prison, and a defendant's complaint about state prison placement rather than federal prison placement does not state a valid ground for postconviction relief under Rule 3.850.
[1] A plea agreement providing for concurrent sentencing does not obligate the state to house the defendant in federal prison absent explicit language to that effect in the a…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant entered a plea agreement providing that his state sentence would run concurrently with his longer federal sentence. He was subsequently hous…
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 Violation Of Plea Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges the trial court’s summary denial of his motion for postcon-viction relief, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The appellant claims that he entered a plea agreement wherein his state sentence was to run concurrently with his longer federal sentence. The appellant’s motion complains that the plea agreement has been violated because he is serving his state sentence in a state prison, and not in a federal prison. The trial court has attached a copy of the appellant’s plea agreement, which only indicates the trial court’s intention that the appellant’s state sentence be concurrent with the federal sentence, but does not specify that the appellant was to be housed in a federal prison during the service of his concurrent state sentence. See Glenn v. State, 776 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Taylor v. State, 710 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). Because the appellant is not alleging the potential loss of the benefits of concurrent sentences, but merely complains that he is not being housed in the federal penitentiary, we affirm the trial court’s summary denial. See Hightower v. State, 650 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Williams v. State, 710 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998);
AFFIRMED.
ERVIN, WOLF and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Higginbotham v. State, 833 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…nbotham’s convictions [*884] were not qualifying offenses under the Prison Releasee Reoffender Punishment Act in effect at the time of his crime. § 775.082, Fla. Stat. (1997). See Jones v. State, 824 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Jackson v. State, 817 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Broughton v. State, 790 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Accordingly, we affirm Higginbotham’s habitual offender sentences but reverse the minimum mandatory portion of his sentence imposed pursuant to the Prison Releasee Reoffen-d…
Authorities Cited
- Taylor v. State, 710 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Glenn v. State, 776 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Hightower v. State, 650 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Williams v. State, 710 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)