JIMMIE E. WILLIAMS, 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 Jimmie E. Williams challenged the denial of his motion to withdraw a guilty plea because he was not informed during the plea colloquy that habitual offender sentencing would result in the loss of gain time, thereby effectively extending his actual incarceration. The court reversed, finding this omission constituted error affecting the validity of the plea.
The court held that the failure to inform Williams about the potential loss of gain time as a result of HFO sentencing was error requiring reversal. On remand, the State must be given the option to either vacate the HFO portion of sentences to allow restructuring without HFO sanctions or permit Williams to withdraw his plea to all five cases.
[1] A defendant must be informed of the potential loss of gain time as a result of being sentenced as a habitual offender before entering a guilty plea.
[2] A court must offer the state the option to vacate the habitual offender portion of a sentence or allow the defendant to withdraw their plea when the defendant was not pro…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Unfortunately, there is nothing in the record to establish that Appellant was informed about the potential lost gain time as a result of his being sentenced as an HFO, an error that affects five years of the twenty-year sentence and requires reversal.”
Establishes the core error—failure to disclose gain-time consequences during plea colloquy—and its magnitude.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams faced potential mandatory life sentences in five cases. Under a negotiated plea agreement, he pled guilty and the State amended a life felony…
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 Prison Releasee Reoffender (Prr) Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant challenges the order denying his motion to withdraw his plea because he was not informed that the habitual offender sentences he received might affect the possibility of early release. We reverse.
Facing exposure to a potential mandatory life sentence, Appellant pled guilty in five cases under a negotiated agreement with the State. In exchange for his plea, the State amended the life felony to a second-degree felony and agreed to a sentence cap of twenty years as an habitual felony offender, fifteen years of which Appellant was to serve day for day as a prison releasee reoffender. During the plea colloquy, Appellant was informed of the maximum exposure he faced and that his PRR sentence of fifteen years would be “day for day.” Unfortunately, there is nothing in the record to establish that Appellant was informed about the potential lost gain time as a result of his being *1090sentenced as an HFO, an error that affects five years of the twenty-year sentence and requires reversal. Murphy v. State, 952 So.2d 1214, 1215 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).
To remedy this error, on remand the lower court shall offer the State the option of agreeing to vacate the HFO portion of the sentences in case numbers 05-2007-CF-49098 and 05-2007-CF-49376 or allowing Appellant to withdraw his plea on all five cases. If the State chooses the former option, the lower court may restructure the sentences to give maximum effect to the plea agreement without imposing an HFO sentence. Tilley v. State, 871 So.2d 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Because the offenses charged in these two cases arose from different transactions, the trial court may impose a fifteen-year sentence as a PRR on case number 05-2007-CF-49376, consecutive to concurrent five-year sentences in 05-2007-CF-49098. See Powell v. State, 881 So.2d 1180, 1181 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). As restructured, Appellant will serve the twenty-year sentence he bargained for without the objectionable HFO sanctions. Appellant shall be present for resentencing. If the State chooses the latter option, Appellant shall be permitted to withdraw his plea to all cases to which he pled as part of the same agreement, to wit: 05-2007-CF-49376, 05-2007-CF-49098, 05-2006-CF-68045, 05-2006-CF-67983, 05-2005-CF-39492. In that event, the original charges shall be reinstated, including the life felony as originally charged. Lee v. State, 642 So.2d 1190 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
PALMER, C.J., and SAWAYA, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hampton v. State, 217 So. 3d 1096 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…a. 3d DCA 1993); see also Cariveau v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t. of Corr., No. 3:14-cv-542-J-32MCR, 2016 WL 6600955, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 8, 2016).2 Based on the foregoing, we sua sponte considered the matter en banc and now recede from Williams v. State, 2 So. 3d 1089 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009), and Murphy v. State, 952 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007), to the extent that those decisions (1) required trial courts to include in plea colloquies an Ashley-based discussion of the possible impact habitualization could have on…
-
Lerandros L. Smith v. State, 126 So. 3d 397 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…ry 1, 1994, but which continue to hold that a plea is involuntary unless the defendant was advised about the potential for lost gain time or early release as a result of the defendant being sentenced as a habitual felony offender. Williams v. State, 2 So. 3d 1089, 1089-90 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); Murphy v. State, 952 So. 2d 1214, 1215-16 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Parker v. State, 808 So. 2d 264, 264 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Butler v. State, 764 So. 2d 794, 795 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Black v. State, 698 So. 2d 1370, 1371 (Fla…
-
Lidesmond Terrell Baker v. State, 12 So. 3d 281 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)…. Id. Accordingly, we reverse the order denying Baker’s motion to withdraw plea and remand for additional proceedings. On remand, the trial court may simply strike the HFO designation, if there is no objection from the State. See Williams v. State, 2 So. 3d 1089 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). This will place Baker in the same position he would have been in if the State had not sought the HFO enhancement. Id.; see also, Wilson, 658 So. 2d at 523. If the State does not agree to removal of the HFO classification, Baker…
Authorities Cited
- Johnson v. State, 871 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- LEE v. State, 642 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Powell v. State, 881 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Murphy v. State, 952 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)