ROGER E. RAMOS-PEREZ, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 court held that a defendant is entitled to relief if the Department of Corrections' forfeiture of gain time thwarts the intent of a negotiated plea agreement.
[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 must determine whether the record conclusively shows a defendant is entitled to no relief on a post-conviction motion.
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 intelligenceThe defendant agreed to a plea for 366 days in prison, but the Department of Corrections forfeited 177 days of gain time, extending his sentence beyon…
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
The defendant, Roger E. Ramos-Perez, appeals the summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. For the reasons stated below, we reverse and remand.
The defendant entered into a plea agreement in which he admitted to violating his probation in exchange for a sentence of 366 days in state prison. After he was sentenced, the Department of Corrections forfeited 177 days of gain time he received in his original sentence. The defendant argues, in his post-conviction motion, the reinstatement of the 177 days of gain time will result in an increase of incarceration of almost six months, which would thwart the intention of his negotiated plea agreement — that he serve a total of 366 days in state prison. We find the defendant’s argument to be meritorious.
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. (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 entitled to relief on this basis.
We, therefore, reverse the trial court’s summary denial and remand for the trial court to determine whether the record shows conclusively the defendant is entitled to no relief. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D). If the record reflects the defendant was to serve a total of 366 days in state prison under the negotiated plea agreement, the trial court shall resentence the defendant in a manner that effectuates the plea agreement in light of the gain time forfeiture, or allow the defendant to withdraw his plea. See Hashem v. State, 61 So.3d 1290 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shadrick Crump v. State, 137 So. 3d 1148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…8 So. 2d at 1152 (only mentioning one case); Dellofano, 946 So. 2d at 127 (probation violation 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. De…
-
Brown v. State, 268 So. 3d 177 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Etienne v. State, 994 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- Chase v. State, 57 So. 3d 898 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Oddi Home Healthcare, Inc. v. State, 61 So. 3d 1290 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
- Hashem v. State, 61 So. 3d 1290 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)