WILLIAM DAVID TAYLOR, 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.
Appellant Taylor challenged the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentences imposed under the 1995 sentencing guidelines. The court reversed, holding that sentences exceeding the statutory maximum are illegal regardless of a plea agreement, and remanded for resentencing or for the state to withdraw from the plea.
Sentences exceeding the statutory maximum are illegal regardless of whether they were part of a negotiated plea agreement. A defendant is entitled to relief for illegal sentences without withdrawing his plea. The trial court must either resentence the defendant to legal sentences or allow the state to withdraw from the plea agreement.
[1] A defendant cannot plead to an illegal sentence, even if the sentence is part of a negotiated plea agreement.
[2] Sentences imposed pursuant to the 1995 sentencing guidelines may be illegal if they fall outside the window period established in Trapp v. …
Previewing 2 of 5 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“a defendant cannot plead to an illegal sentence”
Establishes the principle that plea agreements do not preclude relief for illegal sentences
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTaylor pled no contest to nine counts of burglary of a dwelling, a second-degree felony punishable by up to 15 years imprisonment. His offenses occurr…
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 Negotiated Plea Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges an order which denied his motion to correct illegal sentences, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Because appellant’s sentences are illegal, we reverse.
Appellant argues that his original sentences, which were imposed pursuant to the 1995 sentencing guidelines, are illegal under Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000). He has standing to raise this issue as he alleges that his offenses occurred between January and March of 1996, within the window period established in Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924 (Fla.2000). He has also demonstrated prejudice, as he could not have received the same sentences pursuant to the 1994 guidelines without a departure. See Heggs, 759 So. 2d at 627. Following a hearing, the trial court denied appellant relief on the Heggs claim, stating that, because appellant’s sentences originated from a negotiated plea for a specific term of years, appellant was required to withdraw his plea before resentencing could occur.
The trial court’s reasoning is misplaced.
Notwithstanding the plea agreement and the fact that appellant may have agreed to the sentences at issue, he is still entitled to relief because his sentences are illegal. See Leavitt v. State, 810 So. 2d 1032, 1033 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (citing Blanchette v. State, 620 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), which held that a defendant cannot plead to an illegal sentence).
Appellant pled no contest to nine counts of burglary of a dwelling, which is a second-degree felony punishable by up to 15 years’ imprisonment. See §§ 810.02(3), 775.082(3)(c), Fla. Stat. (1996).
Appellant’s 1995 guidelines scoresheet provided for maximum sentences of 486.0 months and, pursuant to the 1994 guidelines, the maximum sentences would have been 181.0 months. Although appellant’s nine concurrent 25-year sentences fall within the 1995 guidelines, they exceed both the maximum statutory exposure and the maximum authorized by the 1994 guidelines.
Thus, appellant’s sentences are illegal. Compare Ferrington v. State, 804 So. 2d 570, 571 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (defining a sentence in excess of the maximum authorized by law as an illegal sentence), with White v. State, 816 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (holding that when a sentence entered pursuant to a plea agreement exceeds the sentencing guidelines range, the sentence is not “illegal,” as long as it does not exceed the statutory maximum).
Therefore, notwithstanding appellant’s failure to withdraw his plea and contrary to the trial court’s ruling, appellant’s illegal sentences must be vacated.
However, the state, which was also a party to the plea agreement, may be entitled to withdraw from that agreement if it “gave up something as part of the plea agreement.” Latiif v. State, 787 So. 2d 834, 837 (Fla.2001) (quoting from Jolly v. State, 392 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)). Although this issue was raised below, it was not resolved because the trial court refused to vacate appellant’s sentences.
Thus, the trial court shall address this issue on remand.
The trial court’s order is reversed, and the case is remanded for the trial court either to resentence appellant to legal sentences or to allow the state to withdraw from the plea agreement and take appellant to trial on the original charges.
REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.
ALLEN, KAHN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Parks v. State, 223 So. 3d 380 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…plea agreements include Gamez v. State, 944 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), Kelly v. State, 816 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), Howell v. State, 764 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), Adams v. State, 901 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), Taylor v. State, 899 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), Gifford v. State, 744 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), and Ruiz v. State, 537 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). . We note that the plea form and the judgment incorrectly list the three offenses as "PBL” and that the plea and sente…
-
Carson v. State, 37 So. 3d 884 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…886 So. 2d 417, 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (holding that a defendant cannot plead to an illegal sentence); Bruno v. State, 837 So. 2d 521, 523 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (same); Wright v. State, 743 So. 2d 103, 103 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (same); Taylor v. State, 899 So. 2d 1191, 1192 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (same); Leavitt v. State, 810 So. 2d 1032, 1033 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (same); Kinney v. State, 808 So. 2d 1285, 1285 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (same); Debord v. State, 802 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (same); Blanchette v. State,…
-
Pappas v. State, 346 So. 3d 1200 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)…5.022(3), Fla. Stat. (2019). Subsections (4) and (5) provide exceptions for retroactive application where the penalty, forfeiture, or punishment has not yet been imposed, and where a judgment and sentence has not yet become final. See Dean v. State, 303 So. 3d 257, 259 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020) (distinguishing Stapleton). In light of section 775.022(3)’s expression of legislative intent, Appellant’s argument for retroactive application of section 775.087(2) fails. Appellant’s remaining arguments, that the firearm e…
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
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Xzavier Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2000)
- Jolly v. State, 392 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Salim Kamau Latiif v. State, 787 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 2001)
- Mullings v. Barton, 620 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Kelso v. State, 810 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- White v. State, 816 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Evalyn Ferrington v. State, 804 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)