STEPHEN SANDILLO, 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.
Stephen Sandillo appealed the summary denial of his second Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief, challenging his plea to failure to report his address as involuntary and seeking specific performance of his plea agreement to avoid civil commitment under the Jimmy Ryce Act. The court affirmed the denial, holding that his claims were either procedurally barred or without merit under controlling state supreme court precedent.
The court affirmed the summary denial, holding that Sandillo's claim regarding the factual basis for his plea was procedurally barred as a successive motion under Rule 3.850(f), and his claim for specific performance of the plea agreement was without merit under Murray v. Regier, which established that plea agreements have no bearing on subsequent civil commitment under the Jimmy Ryce Act.
[1] A claim that a plea was involuntary due to an inadequate factual basis is procedurally barred if not raised in a prior motion for postconviction relief.
[2] A plea agreement in a criminal case does not affect the subsequent involuntary civil commitment of a defendant under the Jimmy Ryce Act.
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“Thus, his claim is procedurally barred under Rule 3.850(f), which prohibits successive motions.”
Establishes that claims that could have been raised in an initial Rule 3.850 motion cannot be raised in successive motions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSandillo pleaded no contest to failure to report his address to the Department of Motor Vehicles, a third-degree felony, pursuant to a plea agreement …
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 Specific Performance Of Plea Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, C.J.
Stephen Sandillo (“Sandillo”) appeals the summary denial of his second motion filed pursuant to Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. We affirm.
Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Sandillo pleaded no contest to a charge of failure to report his address to the Department of Motor Vehicles, a third- degree felony.1 In exchange for his plea, the state dropped two pending charges of committing a lewd and lascivious act on or in the presence of a child, and Sandillo received a downward departure sentence. After he completed his prison sentence, he was transferred to the custody of the Department of Children and Family Services pursuant to the Jimmy Ryce Act.2 In his first Rule 3.850 motion, filed on 19 January 2001, Sandillo alleged that his counsel was ineffective. This motion was summarily denied in an order dated 2 May 2001. Sandillo did not appeal the order. He filed his second 3.850 motion on 20 June 2002, and it too was summarily denied. Sandillo appeals the latter order and raises two grounds in support of his appeal;
First, Sandillo argues that his plea was involuntary because the state failed to establish a factual basis for it. He acknowledges that the factual basis for the plea was the police report contained in the court file, but urges that the report was “inadequate.” Sandillo is not entitled to relief on this claim because it is plainly one that could or should have been raised in his first Rule 3.850 motion. Thus, his claim is procedurally barred under Rule 3.850(f), which prohibits successive motions. See also Moore v. State, 820 So. 2d 199 (Fla.2002).
Second, Sandillo claims that he is entitled to specific performance of his plea agreement with the state, urging that his plea agreement did not contemplate civil commitment pursuant to the Jimmy Ryce Act. Sandillo relies on Harris v. State, 27 Fla. L. Weekly D946, — So. 2d -, 2002 WL 731699 (Fla. 1st DCA Apr.26, 2002). Harris held that a defendant was entitled to specific performance of his plea agreement, i.e., a thirteen-month prison sentence and no civil commitment pursuant to the Jimmy Ryce Act. More recently, however the supreme court held that relief is not available on this theory:
Thus, we conclude that any bargain that a defendant may strike in a plea agreement in a criminal case would have no bearing on the subsequent involuntary civil commitment for control, care, and treatment. Consequently, Murray’s constitutional claim is without merit and he was not entitled to release from detention on this basis.
Murray v. Regier, 27 Fla. L. Weekly S1008, S1010, — So. 2d -, -, 2002 WL 31728885 (Fla. Dec. 5, 2002); see also Satz v. Runion, 838 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 4th DCA Mar.5, 2003).
AFFIRMED.
SHARP, W., and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. . Sandillo had a prior sex offense conviction in Connecticut. As a convicted felon, he was required to register each change of address. See generally §§ 775.21 and 943.0435, Fla. Stat. . §§ 394.910-931, Fla. Stat. (1999).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Harris, 881 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 2004)…State v. Klein, 851 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Marsh v. State, 849 So. 2d 1178, 1181 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Krischer v. Ford, 847 So. 2d 1050, 1051 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Sublett v. State, 842 So. 2d 314, 315 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Sandillo v. State, 842 So. 2d 1018, 1019 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Satz v. Runion, 838 So. 2d 689, 689-90 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Krischer v. Faris, 838 So. 2d 600, 602-03 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Garcia v. State, 847 So. 2d 980, 980 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).3 No court has distinguished Murray. In fa…
-
In re Commitment: John R. Cartwright. John R. Cartwright v. State, 870 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…is contract rights. See Collie v. State, 710 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); State v. McFarland, 28 Fla. L. Weekly D2298, — So. 2d -, 2003 WL 22259634 (Fla. 1st DCA Oct.3, 2003); Marsh v. State, 849 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Sandillo v. State, 842 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Sublett v. State, 842 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Satz v. Runion, 838 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). II. HEARSAY EVIDENCE Hearsay evidence related to Cartwright’s prior attempted capital sexual battery offenses was admitt…
-
State v. McFARLAND, 884 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…rray v. Regier, 872 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 2002). Any bargain a defendant may strike in a plea agreement in a criminal case has no bearing , on a subsequent involuntary civil commitment for control, care, and treatment. See id; see also Sandillo v. State, 842 So. 2d 1018, 1019 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Krischer v. Faris, 838 So. 2d 600, 603 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). REVERSED. WOLF, C.J., and BROWNING, J., concur.…
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
- Moore v. State, 820 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 2002)
- Murray v. Regier, 872 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 2002)
- Satz v. Runion, 838 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)