GLENN RANDALL CHASE, 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.
Chase appeals the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 motion challenging the Department of Corrections' forfeiture of 181 days of gain time following his probation violation conviction. The court holds that while the DOC has authority to forfeit gain time, a defendant is entitled to enforce a plea agreement if the forfeiture thwarts its intent, and reverses for the trial court to address Chase's claim on the merits.
While the Department of Corrections has statutory authority to forfeit gain time, a defendant is entitled to have a plea agreement enforced if the DOC's forfeiture thwarts the intent of the negotiated plea. The trial court can effectuate the purpose of the plea by resentencing or allowing withdrawal from the plea.
[1] A defendant is entitled to have a plea agreement enforced if the Department of Corrections' forfeiture of gain time thwarts the intent of a negotiated plea.
[2] A trial court cannot rescind the Department of Corrections' forfeiture of gain time, but it can grant a motion to enforce a plea agreement where the forfeiture thwarted i…
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“a defendant is entitled to have a plea agreement enforced if the Department's forfeiture of gain time thwarted the intent of a negotiated plea”
Establishes the core holding that DOC forfeiture does not automatically override plea agreements
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChase entered a plea agreement admitting to a probation violation in exchange for a 24-month sentence. After sentencing, the Department of Corrections…
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 Motion Pursuant To Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.850 cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant challenges the summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. For the reasons discussed below, we reverse and remand.
The appellant entered a plea agreement in which he admitted violating his probation in exchange for a sentence of twenty-four months’ imprisonment. After he was sentenced, the Department of Corrections forfeited 181 days of gain time. The appellant alleges that by forfeiting his gain time, the Department thwarted the intent of his plea agreement. He alleges that it was the understanding of the parties that he was to serve no more than 24 months in prison, but that the forfeiture will lead to his serving 24 months, 181 days in prison.
It is well-settled that the Department of Corrections has the authority to forfeit all of a defendant’s gain time following a violation of probation. See § 944.28(1), Fla. Stat. (2007); Horton v. State, 943 So.2d 859, 860 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). However, a defendant is entitled to have a plea agreement enforced if the Department’s forfeiture of gain time thwarted the intent of a negotiated plea. See, e.g., McAllister v. State, 821 So.2d 1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (“While the trial court cannot compel the DOC to follow the plea agreement since it would usurp the DOC’s authority to forfeit gain time, the trial court can still effectuate the purpose of the plea agreement by either resentencing the appellant in a manner that will effectuate the plea agreement given the DOC’s forfeiture, or by allowing the appellant to withdraw from his plea”); Etienne v. State, 994 So.2d 450 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (a defendant is entitled to have a plea agreement enforced if the DOC’s forfeiture of gain time thwarted the intent of a negotiated plea agreement); State v. Jackson, 842 So.2d 1040 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (although it is clear trial court cannot rescind DOC’s forfeiture of gain time, it could grant a motion to enforce plea where that forfeiture thwarted the intent of negotiated plea agreement), and cases cited therein; Dellahoy v. State, 816 So.2d 1253 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (holding that the Department of Corrections’ forfeiture of gain time cannot be countermanded by the court, but neither can that forfeiture thwart a plea agreement). The trial court’s order does not contain any record attachments conclusively refuting the appellant’s, claim. *900Thus, we reverse and remand for the trial court to attach portions of the record conclusively refuting the appellant’s claim or to hold an evidentiary hearing.
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
ROBERTS, CLARK, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ramos-Perez v. State, 99 So. 3d 515 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…n time following a violation of probation. See § 944.28(1), Fla. Stat. (2010). “However, a defendant is entitled to have a plea agreement enforced if the Department’s forfeiture of gain time thwarted the intent of a negotiated plea.” Chase v. State, 57 So. 3d 898, 899 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); see also Etienne v. State, 994 So. 2d 450, 452 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). In this case, the forfeiture of the defendant’s gain time means the defendant will be facing a longer sentence than agreed, and thus, the defendant would be…
-
Shadrick Crump v. State, 137 So. 3d 1148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…iolation leading to negotiated plea); Barnett, 933 So. 2d at 1269 (no mention of second case); Dellahoy, 816 So. 2d at 1253 (same); see also, Ramos-Perez v. State, 99 So. 3d 515 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (plea after violation of probation); Chase v. State, 57 So. 3d 898 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (same); Etienne v. State, 994 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (same); State v. Jackson, 842 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (same); Williams v. Dep’t of Corrections, 734 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (same). As these cases illustra…
-
Wright v. State, 115 So. 3d 1098 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…hat it was the intent of the parties that he serve no more than 5 years in prison. A claim that a forfeiture of gain time by the DOC thwarted the intent of a negotiated plea agreement may be raised in a timely rule 3.850 motion. See Chase v. State, 57 So. 3d 898, 899 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). A defendant is entitled to enforcement of the agreement if the forfeiture of gain time frustrated the intent of the plea agreement. Etienne v. State, 994 So. 2d 450, 452 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). A court “cannot compel the DOC to…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dellahoy v. State, 816 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- State v. Nashawn P. Jackson, 842 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- McALLISTER v. State, 821 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Etienne v. State, 994 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- Horton v. State, 943 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)