ADAM R. HAYNES, 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.
Adam Haynes appealed the denial of his motion to correct an allegedly illegal nine-year sentence imposed as part of a negotiated plea agreement. The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, holding that because the sentence resulted from a negotiated plea, the proper remedy for any defects is a rule 3.850 motion to withdraw the plea rather than a rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence.
A sentence resulting from a negotiated plea agreement cannot be challenged via a rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. The proper remedy for challenging a sentence that is a product of a plea negotiation is a rule 3.850 motion to set aside the plea, vacate the judgment and sentence, and reinstitute pending charges, not a rule 3.800(a) motion.
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence under rule 3.800(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, is not the proper procedural vehicle to challenge the terms of a negotia…
[2] A defendant challenging the validity of a negotiated plea agreement and the resulting sentence must file a motion under rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, t…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“an illegal sentence cannot be imposed even as part of a negotiated plea agreement”
Establishes that while sentences from plea agreements are not immune from illegality challenges, the proper procedural mechanism for addressing them differs from standard illegal sentence motions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHaynes was charged with eight counts including five counts of aggravated assault with a firearm, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, shootin…
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 10-20-Life Law cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Adam Haynes, appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his pro se motion to correct illegal sentence, filed pursuant to rule 3.800(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Haynes argues that his nine-year sentence, consisting of three consecutive three-year minimum mandatory terms, is illegal on its face. Because we hold the sentence was not subject to challenge by way of a motion to correct illegal sentence, we affirm the trial court’s denial.
Haynes was originally charged by Information with eight counts: five counts of aggravated assault with a firearm in violation of sections 784.021(l)(a), 775.087(2)(a)l, and 775.087(2)(a)2, Florida Statutes (2010); possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of sections 790.23 and 775.087(2)(a)l, Florida Statutes; shooting a deadly weapon into an occupied conveyance in violation of section 790.19, Florida Statutes; and battery in violation of section 784.03, Florida Statutes. Haynes entered a negotiated plea to two counts of aggravated assault with a firearm and one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in return for three consecutive three-year minimum mandatory sentences and dismissal of the remaining five counts. The judge imposed the agreed-upon sentence, for a total of nine years imprisonment.
Haynes now complains the sentence he bargained for was illegal. His “right to challenge an illegal sentence is not waived by the fact that the sentence was the result of a negotiated plea.” Torbert v. State, 832 So.2d 203, 205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); accord Wheeler v. State, 864 So.2d 492, 492 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (“[A]n illegal sentence cannot be imposed even as part of a negotiated plea agreement....”) But while Haynes sought relief under rule 3.800(a) to obtain correction of his sentence, he was actually challenging the terms of his plea agreement and the resulting convictions. See Dominguez v. State, 98 So.3d 198, 200 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); Nedd v. State, 855 So.2d 664, 664 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). As the sentence was the product of a negotiated plea, the remedy is not to correct the illegal sentence, but rather a motion under Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 to set aside the plea, vacate the judgment and sentence, and reinstitute all charges pending against the defendant prior to entry of the plea. See Jolly v. State, 392 So.2d 54, 56 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (“If the plea negotiation is not binding on the defendant, then it is not binding upon the state.”). Thus, the current motion was properly denied. Nedd, 855 So.2d at 664; Jolly, 392 So.2d at 56; see also Dominguez, 98 So.3d at 201.
The withdrawal of a plea can have unintended consequences. Ciambrone v. State, 93 So.3d 1176, 1177 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (“This case demonstrates that a defendant who is allowed to withdraw a plea some*483times runs the risk of an outcome far worse than the sentence under the original plea.”). Haynes’ offenses are subject to the 10-20-life law, meaning that he must receive a mandatory twenty-year sentence for any aggravated assault involving the discharge of a firearm. See § 775.087(2)(a)2, Fla. Stat.1 Absent a plea to reduced charges, with the State’s concurrence, see Thomas v. State, 932 So.2d 1221, 1224 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006), if convicted Haynes will plainly face an increase in the time he must serve after withdrawal of his plea. We nonetheless affirm the trial court’s denial of Haynes’ rule 3.800(a) motion without prejudice to his right to file an appropriate 3.850 motion.2
AFFIRMED.
SAWAYA and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (64 total)
-
Shawntavian Tucker v. State, 174 So. 3d 485 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…b) motion, because the sentence was a result of a negotiated plea. Thus, the real objection is to the plea agreement itself. The remedy for an illegal sentence based upon a negotiated plea is to seek to withdraw the plea. [*488] See Haynes v. State, 106 So. 3d 481, 482 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018); Dominguez v. State, 98 So. 3d 198, 199 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). Accordingly, we affirm the denial of this motion without prejudice to appellant’s right to file an appropriate rule 3.850 motion. Affirmed. STEVENSON and FORST, J…
-
Rosario v. State, 260 So. 3d 335 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)…t clear from this record that the mandatory minimum terms were imposed as part of a negotiated plea agreement. Cf. Stewart v. State, 192 So. 3d 572 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016); Tucker v. State, 174 So. 3d 485, 487-88 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015); Haynes v. State, 106 So. 3d 481, 482 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013).” After we struck the brief, Rosario filed a second motion to correct his sentence in the circuit court. The circuit court ordered the State to respond to Rosario’s motion, but the State failed to do so. Ultimatel…
-
Williams v. State, 263 So. 3d 759 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…13); Williams v. State, 129 So. 3d 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (table decision); Hughes v. State, 22 So. 3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Sweet v. State, 987 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Brown v. State, 827 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Haynes v. State, 106 So. 3d 481 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013); Paul v. State, 830 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). NORTHCUTT, SLEET, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.…
Previewing 3 of 64 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jolly v. State, 392 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Nedd v. State, 855 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Wheeler v. State, 864 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- State v. Kipp Karson Kelly, 98 So. 3d 198 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)
- Dominguez v. State, 98 So. 3d 198 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)
- Durwin Torbert v. State, 832 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Talmage E. Thomas v. State, 932 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Ciambrone v. State, 93 So. 3d 1176 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)