CLAY DAWKINS, 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 affirmed the trial court's sentence, finding no material misinformation influenced the sentencing decision regarding gain-time or the plea agreement.
Clay Dawkins appealed his sentence for a probation violation, arguing the trial court relied on misinformation about gain-time and his original plea a…
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 Willful And Substantial Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
Clay Dawkins appeals his sentence after the trial court found that he willfully and substantially violated his probation, and sentenced him to serve twenty years in the Department of Corrections. Dawkins argues that the sentence is illegal because the trial court relied upon material misinformation regarding the amount of gain-time that Dawkins would receive, and the substance of Dawkins’s original plea agreement. We disagree, and affirm.
After reviewing the record, including the sentencing hearing, we are satisfied that the trial court did not rely upon any presumed amount of gain-time that Dawkins would receive, instead stating that it “can’t tell [the Department of Corrections] what to do with their credits and all of that,” and only stating what it believed Dawkins’s sentence “could be” with gain-time.
Additionally, we do not read the record to support the contention that the trial court was misinformed regarding the substance of Dawkins’s original plea agreement.
Therefore, we affirm Dawkins’s judgment and sentence. However, as we stated in Jackson v. State, 925 So.2d 1168, 1170 n. 2 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006):
Although there is no evidence that the court was mistaken, [the defendant] can file a motion for reduction of the sentence pursuant to [Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure] 3.800(c) after our mandate issues if he believes that the trial court may be inclined to lessen his sentence.
Dawkins has available the same opportunity in this case, should he so choose.
Affirmed.
WARNER and FORST, JJ., concur.