PATRICK NEEL, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed summary denial of plea agreement enforcement motion, holding that trial courts have authority to ensure forfeiture of gain time does not interfere with valid plea agreement terms.
Trial courts have authority to ensure that a forfeiture of gain time does not interfere with the terms of a valid plea agreement.
[1] Trial courts have authority to enforce valid plea agreements by ensuring that forfeiture of gain time by the Department of Corrections does not interfere with the agreed-…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“it does have the authority to ensure that a forfeiture of gain time does not interfere with the terms of a valid plea agreement”
Court distinguishing between DOC's administrative authority and trial court's authority to enforce plea agreements
Appellant received a plea agreement for 18 months incarceration in Orange County, but the Department of Corrections forfeited nine months of previousl…
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 Plea Agreement Enforcement cases and more on FLexlaw
PLEUS, J.
We reverse the trial court’s summary denial of appellant’s motion for enforcement of plea agreement. While the trial court is correct that it does not have the authority to instruct the Department of Corrections (“DOC”) on how it administers sentences, it does have the authority to ensure that a forfeiture of gain time does not interfere with the terms of a valid plea agreement. See Dellofano v. State, 946 So. 2d 127, 128 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Dellahoy v. State, 816 So. 2d 1253, 1253 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
In the instant motion, appellant alleges that despite the intention of all parties that appellant receive a sentence of 18 months incarceration in Orange County case number 48-1999-CF-1144, the DOC has nonetheless forfeited nine months of previously-earned gain time resulting in a 27-month term of incarceration. Because appellant’s motion states a viable claim for postconvietion relief and because appellant’s unrefuted allegations must be taken as true, the instant matter must be reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. Furthermore, because appel lant’s allegations, if true, would appear to demonstrate appellant’s entitlement to an immediate release from prison, we direct the trial court to take immediate action to ensure that a hearing is conducted as soon as practicable regarding the issue raised in appellant’s motion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
PALMER, C.J. and TORPY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shadrick Crump v. State, 137 So. 3d 1148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…ase No. F10-24273B, claiming the gain time forfeiture thwarted the intent of his plea agreement for a three-year sentence because it extended his sentence to five years. In support of his argument, Crump cited several cases, including Neel v. State, 988 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008), Dellofano v. State, 946 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007), Barnett v. State, 933 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006), and Dellahoy v. State, 816 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). In denying Crump’s motion, the trial court concluded the…
Authorities Cited
- Dellahoy v. State, 816 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Dellofano v. State, 946 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)