MICHEAL ADAMS, 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 court reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to address the appellant's claim that the DOC was improperly running sentences consecutively when a revised judgment clearly indicated they should run concurrently.
A trial court must either provide conclusive evidence refuting a defendant's sentencing claim or remand to ensure the DOC receives a corrected judgment reflecting concurrent sentences as negotiated.
[1] When a revised judgment in the record explicitly reflects concurrent sentencing as negotiated, a trial court must either provide conclusive evidence refuting the defendan…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Re-record to reflect concurrent sentencet,]”
Language from the October 24, 2012 revised judgment indicating the 2012 sentence was to be concurrently imposed to the 2011 sentences.
Adams pleaded guilty in two cases and negotiated for concurrent sentencing in the 2012 case; the DOC was running the 2012 sentence consecutively to th…
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 Negotiations cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant filed a postconviction motion raising three claims. He acknowledges that the notice of appeal is untimely as to the first two claims. In the third claim he asserts that the Department of Corrections (“DOC”) is improperly consecutively running the sentence imposed in Duval County case number 16-2012-CF-3104 to the sentences imposed in 16-2011-CF-3527, even though he negotiated for concurrent imposition when he entered his plea in the 2012 case. He first approached the DOC to address this sentencing structure, and the DOC told him he needed to obtain a corrected judgment from the lower court in order to have the sentences run concurrently. The trial court denied the claim without any analysis or attachments conclusively refuting it.
As there is an October 24, 2012, revised judgment in the record of the 2012 case, stating that the revision was to “Re-record to reflect concurrent sentencet,]” and which does indeed indicate the 2012 sentence was to be concurrently imposed to the 2011 sentences, we therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to either attach records conclusively refuting the appellant’s claim or to provide this revised judgment to the DOC.
REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED IN PART, with directions.
WOLF, LEWIS, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.