RICHARD BARTHEL, 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.
Richard Barthel appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief challenging minimum mandatory sentences imposed as part of a negotiated guilty plea to heroin offenses. The court reverses as to the minimum mandatory sentence claim, holding that the sentences are illegal under prior case law and must be addressed on remand, though the State retains the option to withdraw from the plea agreement.
The court held that Barthel's minimum mandatory sentences are illegal and subject to correction, but he is not entitled to automatic resentencing. On remand, the State must be given the option to either agree to resentencing in accordance with Taylor or withdraw from the plea agreement and proceed to trial on original charges.
[1] A retroactive reenactment of statutory provisions previously held unconstitutional is invalid if the original enactment violated the single-subject rule.
[2] An illegal sentence is subject to correction at any time, including collaterally, even if imposed pursuant to a negotiated plea.
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“An illegal sentence cannot be imposed pursuant to a negotiated plea and an illegal sentence is subject to correction at any time, including collaterally.”
Establishes the foundational principle that illegal sentences may be challenged regardless of whether they resulted from a plea agreement and may be corrected collaterally.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBarthel entered a negotiated guilty plea to ten heroin-related offenses and received concurrent ten-year sentences with three-year minimum mandatory s…
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 Certify Conflict cases and more on FLexlaw
[*29] FULMER, Judge.
Richard Barthel appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm without discussion the trial court’s order as to Barthel’s first three claims, but we reverse and remand as to his last claim.
Barthel entered a negotiated plea of guilty to ten heroin-related offenses. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent sentences of ten years in prison on all ten counts and imposed a three-year minimum mandatory sentence on six of the ten counts. In his motion, Barthel claimed that the three-year minimum mandatory sentences are illegal based on this court’s opinion in Taylor v. State, 818 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA), review dismissed, 821 So. 2d 302 (Fla.2002) (holding chapter 99-188, Laws of Florida, which required minimum mandatory prison sentences for certain drug offenses, unconstitutional in violation of the single-subject rule). He further alleged that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the imposition of the illegal minimum mandatory terms and asked that his conviction and sentence be vacated.
The trial court concluded that Barthel’s counsel was not ineffective for failing to challenge the minimum mandatory terms because the legislature had retroactively reenacted the amendments held unconstitutional in Taylor, thus curing the single-subject violation. However, prior to the trial court’s denial of Barthel’s motion for postconviction relief, this court held the legislature’s retroactive reenactment of the provisions of chapter 99-188 to be invalid. Green v. State, 839 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Thus, even though the trial court may have been correct in its determination that trial counsel was not ineffective, Barthel’s minimum mandatory sentences are illegal and the trial court erred by denying relief. An illegal sentence cannot be imposed pursuant to a negotiated plea and an illegal sentence is subject to correction at any time, including collaterally. See Bruno v. State, 837 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).
Barthel is not entitled to automatic resentencing, however, because his sentences were the result of a negotiated plea in which the State agreed to reduce the original charges. On remand, the State must be given the option to either agree to a resentencing in accordance with Taylor or withdraw from the plea agreement and proceed to trial on the original charges. Bruno, 837 So. 2d at 523.
As we did in Green, we certify conflict with Carlson v. State, 27 Fla. L. Weekly D2162, — So. 2d —, 2002 WL 31202145 (Fla. 5th DCA Oct.4, 2002), Lecorn v. State, 832 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), and Jones v. State, 27 Fla. L. Weekly D2377, — So. 2d -, 2002 WL 31431541 (Fla. 5th DCA Nov.1, 2002), and we note possible conflict with Nieves v. State, 833 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), and Green v. State, 832 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). We also certify conflict with State v. Franklin, 836 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), review granted, No. SC03-413, 854 So. 2d 659 (Fla.2003), which held that chapter 99-188 does not violate the single-subject rule.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
ALTENBERND, C.J., and NORTHCUTT, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wallen v. State, 877 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…illegal. We remand to allow the State the option of agreeing to a legal sentence on the aggravated assault with a deadly weapon count or withdrawing from the plea agreement so that it may proceed to trial on all counts. See, e.g., Barthel v. State, 862 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (holding where illegal sentence was imposed pursuant to plea bargain, state must be given option of-either agreeing to re-sentencing to legal sentence or proceed to trial on original charges); Tarlhert v. State, 766 So. 2d 457 (Fl…
-
Almenares v. State, 882 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…ven the option on remand to agree to a legal sentence or to withdraw from the plea agreement and proceed to trial on the original charges. See, Wallen v. State, 877 So. 2d 737, 29 Fla. L. Weekly D1059 (Fla. 5th DCA April 30, 2004); Barthel v. State, 862 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). We reverse the trial court’s denial of Almenares’ rule 3.800 motion and remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings. We further certify conflict with State v. Franklin, 836 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. grant…
-
Gonzalo Rodriguez v. State, 885 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…ings. On remand, the State will have the option of (1) agreeing that Rodriguez shall be resentenced to a legal sentence for this charge or (2) withdrawing from the plea agreement and proceeding to trial on the original charges. See Barthel v. State, 862 So. 2d 28, 29 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); see also Wallen v. State, 877 So. 2d 737, 738 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Reversed and remanded. SALCINES and CANADY, JJ., Concur. . Rodriguez's counsel initially filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S…
Previewing 3 of 6 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)
- Gende v. Fla. Dep't of Child. & Families, 836 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Green v. State, 839 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Lecorn v. State, 832 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Green v. State, 832 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Bruno v. State, 837 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Eliezer Stern v. State, 833 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Nieves v. State, 833 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)