CHAD PIFER, 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 appellate court reversed the denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence, holding that the lower court should have treated the motion as one to withdraw a plea. The case clarifies the procedural avenues for challenging sentences that allegedly exceed plea agreement terms.
Yes, a claim that a sentence exceeds the terms of a plea agreement is cognizable under rule 3.850 and should be considered as such. The motion was properly sworn and filed within the time limitations for a rule 3.850 motion.
[1] A motion alleging a sentence exceeds the terms of a plea agreement is cognizable under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
[2] A postconviction court should treat a motion as filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 if it is properly sworn and filed within the time limitations of that…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“We reverse and remand because the postconviction court should have considered his motion as if it were filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.”
Establishes the appellate court's decision and the primary procedural correction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChad Pifer pleaded guilty to multiple offenses and was sentenced to twelve years incarceration followed by ten years of drug offender probation. He fi…
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
Chad Pifer challenges the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse and remand because the postconviction court should have considered his motion as if it were filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
Pifer pleaded guilty to the offenses charged in eighteen separate cases and was sentenced to twelve years’ incarceration to be followed by ten years’ drug offender probation. In his rule 3.800(a) motion, Pifer alleged that his sentence was illegal because it exceeded the eighteen-year sentencing cap specified in his plea agreement. The postconviction court denied the motion on the ground that Pifer’s claim was not cognizable under rule 3.800(a) and must instead be raised through a timely motion to withdraw the plea. See Williams v. State, 873 So.2d 1248 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). The court further found that even if Pifer’s motion were construed as a motion to withdraw plea, it would be denied as untimely.
*1155Pifer’s claim that his sentence exceeds the terms of his plea agreement is facially sufficient and cognizable under rule 8.850. See Hettick v. State, 977 So.2d 797, 798 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (citing Dellofano v. State, 946 So.2d 127, 129 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (Lawson, J., concurring specially) (observing that because there is no procedure in the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure for a “motion to enforce plea agreement,” the only avenue available to the movant is to file a claim pursuant to rule 3.850)). Because Pifer’s motion was properly sworn and filed within the time limitations of rule 3.850, the postconviction court should have treated it as a motion filed pursuant to that rule. See Riviere v. State, 965 So.2d 845 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). Accordingly, we reverse the postconviction court’s order and remand for reconsideration pursuant to rule 3.850. If the court denies the motion, it must attach portions of the record that conclusively refute Pi-fer’s claim.
Reversed and remanded.
CASANUEVA and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pifer v. State, 59 So. 3d 225 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…So. 2d 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). In February 2008, Pifer filed a motion to correct illegal sentence, which was summarily denied. Pifer appealed the summary denial of his motion, and this court reversed and remanded for reconsideration. Pifer v. State, 8 So. 3d 1154 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).2 On remand, the postconviction court reconsidered Pifer’s claim as well as additional claims for postconviction relief that had been raised by Pifer. In October 2009, the postconviction court granted relief on the sentencing clai…1 / 2
-
Almodovar v. State, 56 So. 3d 898 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…ms v. State, 51 So. 3d 598 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Hettick v. State, 977 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). Had Mr. Almo-dovar’s motion been properly sworn, the postconviction court could have considered it as a timely rule 3.850 motion. See Pifer v. State, 8 So. 3d 1154 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). Since it was not sworn, however, we must reverse the postconviction court’s decision on the merits and remand for the court to dismiss the motion with leave for Mr. Al-modovar to file a facially sufficient claim within thirty day…
-
Bailey v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)…for which he bargained or that was orally pronounced because his written sentence could be interpreted in a manner that was inconsistent with the allegedly bargained-for sentence and the trial court's alleged oral pronouncement. See Pifer v. State, 8 So. 3d 1154, 1155 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (holding that the defendant's claim that his sentence exceeded the terms of his plea agreement was cognizable in a rule 3.850 motion); Sweet v. State, 987 So. 2d 747, 747 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (holding that a claim seeking to e…
Authorities Cited
- Dellofano v. State, 946 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- Hettick v. State, 977 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- Williams v. State, 873 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Riviere v. State, 965 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)