CHARLES L. WRIGHT, 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.
Charles L. Wright appeals the summary denial of his postconviction motion challenging whether the Department of Corrections' revocation of his gain time violated the intent of his plea agreement. The court reversed and remanded, holding that a defendant is entitled to enforcement of a plea agreement if loss of gain time frustrated its intent, and the trial court must either attach conclusive record evidence refuting the claim or hold an evidentiary hearing.
A claim that DOC forfeiture of gain time thwarted the intent of a negotiated plea agreement may be raised in a timely Rule 3.850 motion, and a defendant is entitled to enforcement if the forfeiture frustrated the plea agreement's intent. While courts cannot compel the DOC to follow the plea agreement, they can honor its intent by either resentencing the appellant to effectuate the agreement despite the DOC's forfeiture or allowing withdrawal from the plea. The trial court erred in summarily denying the motion without attaching record evidence conclusively refuting the claim or holding an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A claim that the forfeiture of gain time by the Department of Corrections thwarted the intent of a negotiated plea agreement may be raised in a postconviction motion.
[2] A defendant is entitled to enforcement of a plea agreement if the forfeiture of gain time frustrated the intent of the agreement.
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“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.”
Establishes that postconviction relief is available for DOC gain time forfeiture affecting 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 intelligenceWright entered a plea agreement admitting to a probation violation in exchange for a 5-year prison sentence, agreeing to waive prison credit from a pr…
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
Charles L. Wright appeals the summary denial of his motion seeking postconviction relief brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. For the reasons discussed below, we reverse and remand.
The appellant entered a plea agreement with the state wherein he admitted to a violation of his probation in return for a 5-year prison sentence. As an additional condition of his plea, he agreed to waive his prison credit from his previous sentence in this case. The plea agreement contained no waiver of previously earned gain time. In accepting the plea, the sentencing court expressed concern that the Department of Corrections would also revoke the appellant’s gain time from his prior prison sentence, causing his sentence to exceed that contemplated by the parties. It was agreed that, if this occurred, the parties would revisit the issue.
In the instant postconviction motion, the appellant alleged that the subsequent revocation of his previously earned gain time caused his prison sentence to exceed that contemplated by his plea agreement. He argued that 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 follow the plea agreement since it would usurp the DOC’s authority to forfeit gain time,” but it can honor the intent 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.” McAllister v. State, 821 So.2d 1250, 1251 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).
In the instant case, as the state concedes, the trial court’s order does not contain any record attachments that conclusively refute the appellant’s claim. Further, while the trial court construed the instant motion as barred by a prior decision on the merits on a motion brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800, an examination of this motion reveals that it did not address the same claims.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand the trial court’s order denying the appellant’s rule 3.850 motion for the attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting *1100the appellant’s claim or to hold an eviden-tiary hearing.
WOLF, MAKAR, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shadrick Crump v. State, 137 So. 3d 1148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…n time forfeiture resulted from Department action and not that of the court, and “[o]rdinarily that is challenged by proceedings in Tallahassee.” Crump appealed the denial of his motion and we ordered the State to respond. Citing to Wright v. State, 115 So. 3d 1098, 1099 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), and Dellofano, the State agreed with Crump’s argument and recommended this court remand to the trial court for it to determine whether the forfeiture thwarted the intent of Crump’s negotiated plea. We reject the State’s re…
-
Curry v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)
Authorities Cited
- McALLISTER v. State, 821 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Etienne v. State, 994 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- Chase v. State, 57 So. 3d 898 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)