Cleveland v. State

394 So. 2d 230
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedFebruary 25, 1981
Docket80-910
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 394 So. 2d 230 (Cleveland 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
Cleveland v. State, 394 So. 2d 230 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Opinion

394 So.2d 230 (1981)

William Henry CLEVELAND, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 80-910.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

February 25, 1981.

William Henry Cleveland, in pro. per.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Edward M. Chew, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

COBB, Judge.

The appellant, as the defendant below, negotiated a plea and sentence before the trial court in return for the dismissal by the state of other counts against him. He then challenged the sentence as illegal pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. He was sentenced to ten years imprisonment for attempted armed burglary, a third-degree felony with a maximum term of five years. State v. Sudol, 357 So.2d 761 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Therefore, the negotiated sentence is illegal.

In accordance with our opinion in Jolly v. State, 392 So.2d 54 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), we vacate the plea, the judgment and sentence, and reinstate the dismissed counts; provided, however, if the state should exercise its option to accept the plea with the sentence reduced to a legal term, then the other counts shall again be dismissed and the plea and the judgment shall stand as the predicate for a new sentence consistent with Florida law. See §§ 777.04(4)(c) and 775.082(3)(d), Fla. Stat. The affirmative exercise of the option to accept the plea accompanied by a legal sentence shall be exercised by the state before the trial court *231 within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the mandate herein; otherwise, the case returns to its status before the original plea bargain.

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

DAUKSCH, C.J., and ORFINGER, J., concur.

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

Related

State v. Boswell
37 P.3d 40 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 2001)
Marshall v. State
623 So. 2d 1230 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
Blanchette v. State
620 So. 2d 258 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
Dolan v. State
598 So. 2d 291 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Ford v. State
595 So. 2d 266 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Hingson v. State
553 So. 2d 768 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
Chae v. People
780 P.2d 481 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1989)
Ruiz v. State
537 So. 2d 682 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
Daniels v. Smith
478 So. 2d 110 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)
Campbell v. State
453 So. 2d 525 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
Chaney v. State
452 So. 2d 1148 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
Forbert v. State
437 So. 2d 1079 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1983)
Riley v. State
448 So. 2d 1029 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
Peak v. State
399 So. 2d 1043 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
394 So. 2d 230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cleveland-v-state-fladistctapp-1981.