TONY MCALLISTER, 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 McAllister challenges the summary denial of his postconviction motion seeking to enforce a plea agreement under which he was promised ten years credit for time served on a 17-year sentence. The Department of Corrections subsequently revoked the gain-time portion of the ten years. The court reversed and remanded, holding that while it cannot compel the DOC to follow the plea agreement, the trial court can effectuate its purpose by resentencing or allowing withdrawal from the plea.
While the trial court cannot compel the DOC to follow the plea agreement as that would usurp the DOC's statutory authority to forfeit gain time, the trial court can effectuate the purpose of the plea agreement by either resentencing the appellant in a manner that accounts for the DOC's forfeiture or by allowing the appellant to withdraw from his plea.
[1] A trial court has the authority to enforce a plea agreement even when the Department of Corrections revokes gain time.
[2] A forfeiture of gain time by the Department of Corrections cannot thwart the terms of a valid plea agreement.
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 trial court cannot compel the DOC to follow the plea agreement, since it would usurp the DOC's authority to forfeit gain time, the trial court can still effectuate the purpose of the plea agreement by either resentencing the appellant in a manner that will effectuate the plea agreement given the DOC's forfeiture, or by allowing the appellant to withdraw from his plea.”
Establishes the court's holding on the proper remedy available to enforce a plea agreement despite DOC authority to revoke gain time
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcAllister entered into a plea agreement to receive ten years credit for time served on a 17-year sentence following revocation of his probation and w…
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 Plea Agreement Enforcement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant appeals from the summary denial of a rule 8.850 motion for postconviction relief. The appellant entered into a plea agreement to receive ten years credit for time served on a 17-year sentence following the revocation of probation and was sentenced in accordance with this agreement. The Department of Corrections (“DOC”) revoked the gain time portion of the ten years in accordance with section 944.28(1), Florida Statutes (1991).
The appellant claims that he entered into the agreement with the understanding that he would receive the full ten years of credit. The appellant now seeks to either be resentenced in a manner that will enforce his plea agreement, or to withdraw from his plea. While the trial court cannot compel the DOC to follow the plea agreement, since it would usurp the DOC’s authority to forfeit gain time, the trial court can still effectuate the purpose of the plea agreement by either resentencing the appellant in a manner that will effectuate the plea agreement given the DOC’s forfeiture, or by allowing the appellant to withdraw from his plea. See Martin v. State, 816 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Flowers v. State, 754 So. 2d 65, 66-67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Williams v. Department of Corrections, 734 So. 2d 1132, 1133 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Foldi v. State, 695 So. 2d 886, 887 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
It is clear from the language of these cases that effectuating the plea agreement is proper even though the appellant had no legal entitlement to such gain time since the DOC could declare it forfeited, because the court and parties contemplated that the appellant would be credited with such gain time. See id. Because the appellant has made a facially sufficient claim for relief, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
REVERSED.
ALLEN, C.J., DAVIS and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chase v. State, 57 So. 3d 898 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…2007); Horton v. State, 943 So. 2d 859, 860 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). However, a defendant is entitled to have a plea agreement enforced if the Department’s forfeiture of gain time thwarted the intent of a negotiated plea. See, e.g., McAllister v. State, 821 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (“While the trial court cannot compel the DOC to follow the plea agreement since it would usurp the DOC’s authority to forfeit gain time, the trial court can still effectuate the purpose of the plea agreement by either resentenci…1 / 2
-
Horton v. State, 943 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…titioner may have entered into the plea agreement believing he would receive the full 15 years, 260 days of credit. However, the proper remedy is not for this court to ignore Florida law that allows DOC to forfeit gain-time. See McAllister v. State, 821 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). The petition for writ of certiorari is DENIED. KAHN, WEBSTER, and HAWKES, JJ., concur.…
-
Wright v. State, 115 So. 3d 1098 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…e,” but it can honor the intent of the plea agreement “by either resentencing the appellant in a manner that will effectuate the plea agreement given the DOC’s forfeiture, or by allowing the appellant to withdraw from his plea.” McAllister v. State, 821 So. 2d 1250, 1251 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). In the instant case, as the state concedes, the trial court’s order does not contain any record attachments that conclusively refute the appellant’s claim. Further, while the trial court construed the instant motion as ba…
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
- Williams v. The Dep't OF Corr., 734 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Foldi v. State, 695 So. 2d 886 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Martin v. State, 816 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Flowers v. State, 754 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)