Caballero v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Caballero v. State

696 So. 2d 505, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 7600, 1997 WL 365768

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 3, 1997

DocketNo. 97-332

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 696 So. 2d 505 (Caballero v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Caballero v. State, 696 So. 2d 505, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 7600, 1997 WL 365768 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

GRIFFIN, Chief Judge.

Luis Caballero appeals the summary denial of his motion made pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Defendant pled no contest in Defendant claims he has now discovered that his Orange and Lake County sentences are consecutive. Indeed, attached to the motion is a “waiver of rights and agreement to enter plea” form which states, “Defendant to get same sentence offer in Orange County cases, to run concurrent with these [Lake County] cases.” This document is signed by the local assistant state attorney and a representative of the Statewide Prosecutor’s Office. Addition[506]*506ally, the transcript of the sentencing hearing clearly confirms that everyone was aware that this agreement was an incentive for the plea. During sentencing, the trial court stated, “It’s my understanding you will be sentenced in the same manner in Orange County.”

The relief sought by appellant in his motion is that the court vacate “the sentence” and order the Department of Corrections to “amend” and to “correct” the sentence to have the sentences run concurrently. The trial eourt denied defendant’s motion, pointing out that defendant was sentenced in Lake County first and that the circuit court in Lake County has no jurisdiction to direct a particular sentence in another county. Appellant has not sought to withdraw his Lake County plea nor has he asserted that he would not have entered the Lake County plea if he had known that the Orange County sentence would be consecutive. The judge states in his order that the proper forum for defendant to “air his grievance” is Orange County.

There is a good deal we do not know about the issue at hand from the record before us, including whether the agreement was, in fact, breached in Orange County, and, if so, how or why. We do agree that the lower eourt was correct in denying the relief requested.

AFFIRMED.

W. SHARP and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

GRIFFIN, Chief Judge.

Luis Caballero appeals the summary denial of his motion made pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Defendant pled no contest in Defendant claims he has now discovered that his Orange and Lake County sentences are consecutive. Indeed, attached to the motion is a “waiver of rights and agreement to enter plea” form which states, “Defendant to get same sentence offer in Orange County cases, to run concurrent with these [Lake County] cases.” This document is signed by the local assistant state attorney and a representative of the Statewide Prosecutor’s Office. Addition[506]*506ally, the transcript of the sentencing hearing clearly confirms that everyone was aware that this agreement was an incentive for the plea. During sentencing, the trial court stated, “It’s my understanding you will be sentenced in the same manner in Orange County.”

The relief sought by appellant in his motion is that the court vacate “the sentence” and order the Department of Corrections to “amend” and to “correct” the sentence to have the sentences run concurrently. The trial eourt denied defendant’s motion, pointing out that defendant was sentenced in Lake County first and that the circuit court in Lake County has no jurisdiction to direct a particular sentence in another county. Appellant has not sought to withdraw his Lake County plea nor has he asserted that he would not have entered the Lake County plea if he had known that the Orange County sentence would be consecutive. The judge states in his order that the proper forum for defendant to “air his grievance” is Orange County.

There is a good deal we do not know about the issue at hand from the record before us, including whether the agreement was, in fact, breached in Orange County, and, if so, how or why. We do agree that the lower eourt was correct in denying the relief requested.

AFFIRMED.

W. SHARP and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

696 So. 2d 505, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 7600, 1997 WL 365768, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caballero-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack