JERRY RIDLEY, 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.
Jerry Ridley appealed his convictions and sentences for robbery with a firearm, aggravated fleeing or eluding, and driving with a suspended license. The court affirmed the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea but reversed and remanded his habitual felony offender sentences because the predicate offenses used for habitualization appeared to have been obtained at the same sentencing hearing.
The court affirmed the denial of the motion to withdraw the plea and the convictions resulting from it. However, the court reversed the habitual felony offender sentences because the predicate offenses appeared to have been obtained at the same sentencing hearing, making them ineligible to support such a sentence.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to withdraw a plea when the defendant fails to object to the habitual felony offender designation at the s…
[2] A defendant cannot authorize a trial court to impose a habitual felony offender sentence when it is not supported by the requisite underlying substantive offenses.
Previewing 2 of 6 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 authorize a trial court to impose a habitual felony offender sentence when it is not supported by the requisite underlying substantive offenses”
Establishes that despite a plea agreement including habitual felony offender sentencing, the trial court cannot impose such a sentence without valid predicate offenses
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRidley entered into a negotiated plea agreement that included the understanding he would be sentenced as a habitual felony offender on certain charges…
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 Driving While License Suspended Or Revoked cases and more on FLexlaw
SALCINES, Judge.
Jerry Ridley appeals his judgment and sentences for robbery with a firearm, aggravated fleeing or eluding, and driving while license suspended or revoked. He argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to withdraw plea and by sentencing him as a habitual felony offender. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ridley’s motion to withdraw plea. Thus, we affirm the denial of the motion and the convictions entered as a result of Ridley’s plea. However, we reverse the sentences which were designated as habitual felony offender sentences and remand for further proceedings.
In this appeal, the State concedes that this matter must be remanded because the predicate offenses used to ha-bitualize Ridley appear to have been obtained at the same sentencing hearing and, thus, could not serve as the basis for his sentencing as a habitual felony offender. See Edison v. State, 848 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Ridley’s sentences were the result of a negotiated plea which included the understanding that he would be sentenced as a habitual felony offender on the charges which were subject to habitualiza tion, and at the sentencing hearing, Ridley did not object to that designation. Nonetheless, a defendant cannot authorize a trial court to impose a habitual felony offender sentence when it is not supported by the requisite underlying substantive offenses. See Tucker v. State, 864 So. 2d 580, 581 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).
During the pendency of this appeal, appellate counsel filed a motion to correct sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 8.800(b)(2) challenging Ridley’s sentencing as a habitual felony offender, and the trial court denied that motion. Thus, this issue has been preserved for review.
Based on the record before this court, it is not clear whether Ridley qualifies for habitual felony offender sentences; however, Ridley failed to challenge the propriety of that designation at the sentencing hearing. Thus, on remand the State should be given the opportunity to present evidence that Ridley qualifies as a habitual felony offender. See Sanders v. State, 765 So. 2d 161, 162 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). If the trial court determines that Ridley does not qualify, then the State would have the option of enforcing the plea bargain sentences without the habitual felony offender designation, recommencing the plea bargain process, or going to trial. See Tucker, 864 So. 2d at 581.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
WHATLEY and CANADY, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ridley v. State, 956 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…NORTHCUTT, Judge. Jerry Ridley challenges a sentence for a misdemeanor conviction and a cost order imposed after our reversal and remand in his first appeal in this case. See Ridley v. State, 911 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). In 2003, Ridley pleaded no contest to two felony charges and one misdemeanor charge and was convicted and sentenced. In Ridley’s first appeal we reversed the habitual offender sentences imposed for the felonies because it was not…
Authorities Cited
- Sanders v. State, 765 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Tucker v. State, 864 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Edison v. State, 848 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)