CHARLES ROBERT WILLIAMS, III, 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 a portion of a defendant's sentence for burglary of a dwelling. The trial court improperly imposed both a Prison Release Reoffender (PRR) and a Habitual Felony Offender (HFO) sentence of the same length, which is not permitted by statute. The court remanded for further proceedings, noting the trial court must either strike the HFO designation or allow the defendant to withdraw his plea.
The court held that the trial court erred in imposing both a PRR and an HFO sentence of the same length on the burglary charge. The court reversed the sentence on that charge and remanded for further proceedings.
[1] A sentence imposed under the Prison Release Reoffender statute cannot be of the same length as a Habitual Felony Offender sentence on the same charge.
[2] When a trial court cannot honor a negotiated plea agreement, it must offer the defendant the right to withdraw their plea.
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“Because the PRR statute does not permit the imposition of an HFO sentence of the same length as a PRR sentence on the same charge, see Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655, 658-59 (Fla.2000), we reverse the sentence on the burglary of a dwelling charge, and remand for further proceedings.”
Establishes the legal error and the immediate appellate remedy.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCharles Robert Williams, III pleaded guilty to six charges. For the most serious charge, burglary of a dwelling, the trial court imposed a fifteen-yea…
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 Negotiated Plea Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
Charles Robert Williams, III, appeals from his judgment and sentence on six related charges, entered following his plea of guilty to each charge. Only one issue merits discussion. With respect to the most serious charge, burglary of a dwelling, the trial court imposed a sentence of fifteen years in prison “as a prison release reoffender [‘PRR’] and habitual [felony] offender [‘HFO’].”1 Because the PRR *354statute does not permit the imposition of an HFO sentence of the same length as a PRR sentence on the same charge, see Grant v. State, 770 So.2d 655, 658-59 (Fla.2000), we reverse the sentence on the burglary of a dwelling charge, and remand for further proceedings. Although a trial court in these circumstances could normally cure the illegality by imposing a longer HFO sentence on remand, see, e.g., Clark v. State, 72 So.3d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011), doing so in this case would violate the negotiated plea agreement (which capped the sentence at fifteen years). As such, the trial court will either need to strike the HFO designation as to the burglary of a dwelling charge or, if the State or trial judge insist on a longer HFO sentence, allow Williams to withdraw his plea. See Goins v. State, 672 So.2d 30, 32 (Fla.1996) (“[W]hen a trial judge cannot honor a plea bargain the judge must affirmatively offer the defendant the right to withdraw the plea ....”) ■
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART.
GRIFFIN, PALMER and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2000)
- Kit Goins v. State, 672 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 1996)
- Clark v. State, 72 So. 3d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)