DONALD A. HUTCHINSON, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
The court held that a defendant is entitled to specific performance of a plea agreement when the state fails to adhere to its terms, resulting in a longer sentence than contemplated.
The defendant entered a plea bargain for concurrent state and federal sentences, expecting to return to federal prison. Instead, he began serving his …
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
COPE, J.
Donald A. Hutchinson appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. We reverse.
Defendant-appellant Hutchinson was sentenced to a ten-year term in federal prison. He was transferred to state court to face pending Florida charges. These were Miami-Dade County Circuit Court Case Nos. F01-35156 and F00-41836. The defendant entered into a plea bargain for a five-year term in each of the two state eases, the sentences to run concurrently with each other and concurrently with the federal sentence. It was clearly contemplated that upon pronouncement of sentence in the state court cases, the defendant would be returned to federal prison to resume serving his federal sentence.
Instead, the defendant was transported to the Florida prison system where he has begun serving his state sentences. Since there has been no agreement by the federal authorities to give him credit against the federal sentence for time spent in the state prison system, he now has as a practical matter a five-year term of incarceration in the Florida system, after which he would be returned to the federal system to serve the remainder of his federal ten-year term. This would amount in total to approximate ly fifteen years, which is contrary to the plea bargain.
The defendant argues, and we agree, that the defendant is entitled to specific performance of the Florida plea agreement. Taylor v. State, 710 So. 2d 636, 637 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). As permitted by the Taylor decision, the defendant requests that he be sentenced to time served on the Florida cases, so that he may be returned to federal custody for completion of his federal sentences. Id.
Accordingly, we reverse the order denying postconviction relief and remand with directions to resentence the defendant to time served on the Florida cases. The defendant is then to be returned to federal custody for completion of his federal sentence.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. State, 852 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…ide instead either that the sentence be suspended ... or, at the [defendant’s] option, to enter a sentence of ‘time served’ or simply permit him to withdraw his plea.” Id. at 637 (citations omitted) (footnotes omitted); see also Hutchinson v. State, 845 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Glenn v. State, 776 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Accordingly, the trial court’s “take it or leave it” offer to allow Davis to withdraw his plea and go to trial or be stuck with what are essentially consecutive sentences was no…
-
Malvin Eugene Anthony v. State, 877 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…up and take you into federal custody. Do you understand that? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. THE COURT: And with that in mind, you still want to enter this plea? THE DEFENDANT: Yes sir. (See transcript of plea colloquy, pps. 12-14) In Hutchinson v. State, 845 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), the defendant accepted a plea for a state prison sentence to run concurrently with his federal sentence. In that case, it was clearly contemplated that upon the pronouncement of his state court sentence, he was to be returned to…
-
Cortez Kwame Johnson v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)…legations in Rodgers’ motion for postconviction relief are facially sufficient, and therefore, the trial court erred by summarily denying the motion.” Id. at 349. Here, the State does not make such a concession. Similarly, in Hutchinson v. State, 845 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) and Taylor v. State, 710 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), the appellants were granted relief pursuant to a 3.850 motion because they were offered plea bargains and their acceptance of those plea bargains was conditioned upon the sen…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Taylor v. State, 710 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)