MICHAEL A. NEDD, 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.
Michael Nedd appealed the denial of postconviction relief challenging his fifteen-year minimum mandatory sentence for drug trafficking, arguing the statutory provision imposing that sentence was unconstitutional. Although the court agreed the sentence was illegal, it affirmed the denial because Nedd must challenge the plea agreement itself under a different procedural rule.
Although Nedd's sentence is illegal under the court's prior decisions in Taylor v. State and Green v. State, the denial of his motion must be affirmed because he is challenging the terms of a negotiated plea agreement, not merely the sentence. Because plea withdrawal is a potential consequence, Nedd must seek relief under rule 3.850, not rule 3.800.
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence under rule 3.800 is not the proper procedural vehicle to challenge the terms of a negotiated plea agreement.
[2] Challenges to the validity of a plea agreement, which may result in plea withdrawal, must be brought under rule 3.850.
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“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”
Establishes the court's acknowledgment that the sentence was illegal despite affirming the denial on procedural grounds.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNedd was charged with trafficking in 28-30 kilograms of heroin. He entered a negotiated plea to the reduced charge of trafficking in 14-28 grams in ex…
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 Rule 3.850 cases and more on FLexlaw
DAVIS, Judge.
Michael A. Nedd appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 8.800. Although we agree with Nedd that his sentence is illegal, we affirm the denial because this attack is not properly brought pursuant to rule 3.800.
Nedd was originally charged by information with trafficking in twenty-eight grams to thirty kilograms of heroin. He entered a negotiated plea to the reduced charge of trafficking in fourteen to twenty-eight grams, in return for a fifteen-year minimum mandatory sentence.1 When Nedd entered his plea, section 893.135(l)(c)(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2001), required the fifteen-year minimum mandatory term for this offense.
Nedd’s request for relief is based on this court’s decision in Taylor v. State, 818 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA), review dismissed, 821 So. 2d 302 (Fla.2002), which declared chapter 99-188, Laws of Florida, unconstitutional. The fifteen-year minimum mandatory requirement had been added by an amendment to section 893.135 contained in chapter 99-188. Thus, Nedd argues that his sentence was illegal since the amendment was not valid on the date he committed his offense, December 21, 2000.
The trial court denied Nedd’s motion, finding that the legislature had subsequently reenacted the statutory provisions included in the amendments retroactive to the date of the original enactment. Citing Carlson v. State, 2002 WL 31202145, — So. 2d - (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), the trial court concluded that Nedd’s sentence was legal.
Although we agree with Nedd that his sentence is illegal based on Taylor and Green v. State, 839 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), the trial court’s denial of the requested relief must be affirmed. Nedd’s sentence is the product of a negotiated plea. Both the State and Nedd bargained for the agreement. While Nedd has sought relief under rule 3.800 to obtain correction only of his sentence, he is actually challenging the terms of a plea agreement and, thus, the resulting convictions. Because a plea withdrawal is a potential consequence in this case, Nedd must seek relief under rule 3.850. In that proceeding, the State will have the option to either agree to a resentencing or withdraw from the plea agreement and proceed to trial on the original charges. Bruno v. State, 837 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of Nedd’s motion without prejudice to his right to file an appropriate motion under rule 3.850.
Affirmed.
FULMER and CANADY, JJ., Concur. . The negotiations also left open the possibility that the sentence might be reduced if Nedd provided "substantial assistance” in another case. That relief was not granted and is not involved in this appeal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (23 total)
-
Haynes v. State, 106 So. 3d 481 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…e Haynes sought relief under rule 3.800(a) to obtain correction of his sentence, he was actually challenging the terms of his plea agreement and the resulting convictions. See Dominguez v. State, 98 So. 3d 198, 200 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); Nedd v. State, 855 So. 2d 664, 664 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). As the sentence was the product of a negotiated plea, the remedy is not to correct the illegal sentence, but rather a motion under Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 to set aside the plea, vacate the judgment and sentence, and…
-
Sweet v. State, 987 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…llofano v. State, 946 So. 2d 127, 129 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)). Sweet’s sentence is the product of a negotiated plea agreement and, although he is only trying to correct his sentence, withdrawal of his plea is a potential consequence. See Nedd v. State, 855 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Had Sweet filed this motion pursuant to rule 3.850, it would have been timely. However, the postcon-viction court could not treat it as such because it was not properly sworn. [*748] Accordingly, we affirm the postconviction cour…
-
Dominguez v. State, 98 So. 3d 198 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…e in this case, [the defendant] must seek relief under rule 3.850. In that proceeding, the State will have the option to either agree to a resentencing or withdraw from the plea agreement and proceed to trial on the original charges. Nedd v. State, 855 So. 2d 664, 665 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). As in Nedd, the relief Mr. Dominguez seeks is not available unless he moves to withdraw his plea. We note that Mr. Dominguez’s motion was appropriately sworn and filed within the two-year limit of rule 3.850; thus, the post…
Previewing 3 of 23 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, 818 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Green v. State, 839 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Bruno v. State, 837 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)