ADALBERTO TOVAR, 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.
The court held that the trial court erred in denying the motion to correct an illegal sentence based on the prospective application of Taylor v. State.
Adalberto Tovar pleaded guilty to trafficking methamphetamine and received a mandatory minimum sentence. He filed a motion to correct an illegal sente…
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 Prospective Application Of Judicial Decisions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Adalberto Tovar challenges the order of the trial court denying his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
In his motion, Tovar alleged that he pleaded guilty to trafficking in fourteen grams or more but less than twenty-eight grams of methamphetamine. He further alleged that the three-year mandatory minimum term of imprisonment imposed by the trial court pursuant to section 893.135(l)(f)(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1999), is illegal based on our opinion in Taylor v. State, 818 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA), review dismissed, 821 So. 2d 302 (Fla.2002). To-var’s claim is cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion where the error is apparent on the face of the record. See Williams v. State, 870 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). According to Tovar’s motion, he committed the offense of trafficking in methamphetamine on November 5, 1999, which is within the Taylor window.1 Pursuant to Green v. State, 839 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), if Tovar committed the offense within the Taylor window, the trial court is required to resentence him under the 1997 version of section 893.135(l)(f)(l)(a). See McCabe v. State, 844 So. 2d 703, 705 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
The trial court denied Tovar’s motion on the basis that this court’s opinion in Taylor has prospective application only. In support of its ruling, the trial court relied on State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1995), and Witt v. State, 387 So. 2d 922 (Fla.1980). The trial court’s reasoning is erroneous. We reviewed an almost identical order in Williams, and in reversing the order of the trial court in the present case, we rely on the legal conclusions enunciated in that case.
Accordingly, we reverse the order of the trial court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
NORTHCUTT, STRINGER, and SILBERMAN,' JJ., Concur. . See Green v. State, 839 So. 2d 748, 749 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hoyte S. Whitley and Martha R. Whitley v. Royal Trails Prop. Owners' Ass'n, Inc., 910 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…nterpreted as part of the writing. Id. Thus, the meaning is gathered from a general view of the whole writing, with all of its parts being compared, used, and construed, each with reference to the others. Specialized Mach. Transp., Inc. v. Westphal, 872 So. 2d 424, 426 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (citing Paddock v. Bay Concrete Indus., Inc., 154 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)). The developer of the Royal Trails property desired to establish a deed-restricted community and thus created the Association. In so doing, th…
-
Moore v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 916 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…ation of the entire contract and not from separate phrases or paragraphs. See Lalow v. Codomo, 101 So. 2d 390, 393 (Fla.1958); Paddock v. Bay Concrete Indus., Inc., 154 So. 2d 313, 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963); Specialized Mach. Transp., Inc. v. Westphal, 872 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). When it is clear from the language or overall scheme or plan of a contract that the parties intended for various provisions to operate independently of each other, the court must enforce the contract as written. See Paddock, 154…
-
Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A. v. LAW Offs. OF E. Clay Parker, 160 So. 3d 955 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…. Chohonis, 740 So. 2d 65, 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). The entire contract should be considered and provisions should not be considered in isolation to other provisions in the contract. James, 66 So. 2d at 62; Specialized Mach. Transp., Inc. v. Westphal, 872 So. 2d 424, 426 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Story v. Culverhouse, 727 So. 2d 1128, 1130 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Finally, the contract should not be interpreted to achieve an absurd result. Specialized Mach. Transp., 872 So. 2d at 426; see also Whitley, 910 So. 2d at 383…
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
- Witt v. State, 387 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 1980)
- State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1995)
- Taylor v. State, 818 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Green v. State, 839 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- R.R. v. State, 844 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- McCABE v. State, 844 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Williams v. State, 870 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)