GEORGE W. FELDER, 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.
George Felder appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that he was improperly sentenced as a habitual offender upon probation revocation. The court affirmed the denial because Felder failed to allege that his original probation sentence was not imposed pursuant to plea negotiations, which is required to state a facially sufficient claim under controlling precedent.
A habitual offender sentence to probation is legal only when imposed pursuant to plea negotiations. Felder's motion was facially insufficient because he did not allege that his original probation sentence was not imposed pursuant to plea negotiations. The doctrine of laches does not bar the claim because controlling precedent did not establish the claim's viability until after Felder's original sentencing.
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence is facially insufficient if it fails to allege that a habitual offender sentence imposed upon probation revocation was not imposed…
[2] A defendant is entitled to be resentenced under the guidelines if the record cannot demonstrate that a negotiated plea agreement was entered into for the probation senten…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Such a sentence is legal only when it has been imposed pursuant to plea negotiations.”
Establishes the legal standard for habitual offender sentences to probation under Pankhurst v. State
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFelder was originally sentenced to probation in three cases (89-18725, 89-18726, and 89-18727). When he violated probation, he was resentenced as a ha…
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 Doctrine Of Laches cases and more on FLexlaw
[*980] DAVIS, Judge.
George W. Felder appeals the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm without discussion as to three of his sentences, but we address the three remaining sentences.
Felder claims that he was originally sentenced to probation in case numbers 89-18725, 89-18726, and 89-18727 but that when he violated his probation, he was sentenced as a habitual offender to prison terms in each case. He argues that in sentencing him to probation, the court chose to sentence him pursuant to the sentencing guidelines. Therefore, he claims that upon revocation of probation, he could not be sentenced as a habitual offender. The record demonstrates that the court originally sentenced Felder to probation terms as a habitual offender in all three cases. Such a sentence is legal only when it has been imposed pursuant to plea negotiations. Pankhurst v. State, 796 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). In order to state a facially sufficient claim for relief under Pankhurst, a defendant must allege that the sentence was not imposed pursuant to plea negotiations. Lalone v. State, 807 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Felder does not make such an allegation. Therefore, his claim is facially insufficient.
We affirm without prejudice to any right Felder may have to file a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion raising the same claim. See id. Felder would be entitled to be resentenced under the guidelines if the record cannot demonstrate that he entered into a negotiated plea agreement with either the State or the trial court for his probation sentences. See Salters v. State, 840 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Chaney v. State, 805 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).
Furthermore, the doctrine of laches does not bar Felder from raising this claim. Laches is sustainable in a criminal case where there has been both a lack of due diligence on the defendant’s part in bringing forth the claim and prejudice to the State. Wright v. State, 711 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). Felder could not have stated a successful claim before Pankhurst and its progeny were decided; therefore, he did not lack due diligence in failing to raise this claim sooner. Affirmed.
WHATLEY and NORTHCTJTT, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bain v. State, 9 So. 3d 723 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…e State’s arguments to be “well taken and adopt[ed]” them. “Laches is sustainable in a criminal case where there has been both a lack of due diligence on the defendant’s part in bringing forth the claim and prejudice to the State.” Felder v. State, 842 So. 2d 979, 980 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (citing Wright v. State, 711 So. 2d 66, 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)). However, the “ ‘[application of the doctrine [of laches] often involves factual issues that are not properly resolved without an evidentiary hearing.’ ” Wilson v…
Authorities Cited
- Wright v. State, 711 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Collazo v. Moore, 796 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Pankhurst v. State, 796 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Chaney v. State, 805 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Eldred Salters v. State, 840 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Lalone v. State, 807 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)