Evans v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Evans v. State

728 So. 2d 802, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 2212, 1999 WL 104449

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 3, 1999

DocketNo. 97-00599

StatusPublished

This text of 728 So. 2d 802 (Evans 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

Evans v. State, 728 So. 2d 802, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 2212, 1999 WL 104449 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

WHATLEY, Judge.

Brandon Michael Evans appeals his sentences for two counts of third-degree murder, grand theft, and burglary of a conveyance. He contends that his sentences do not comply with his plea agreement. Although the State agrees that the sentences do not comply with the plea agreement, it argues that Evans is precluded from raising this issue on appeal because he failed to raise it below. See § 924.051, Fla. Stat. (Supp.1996). We conclude that Evans may raise this issue for the first time on appeal because it involves fundamental error and we reverse.

In Bain v. State, 730 So.2d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), this court held that a sentencing error that improperly extends the defendant’s incarceration or supervision would likely be considered fundamental. In the present case, the plea agreement provided that Evans would serve eight years in prison. Although the trial court and both parties attempted to frame a sentence that would result in an eight-year prison term, the written sentence provides that Evans will serve sixteen years in prison. This sentencing error improperly extends Evans’ incarceration, and therefore, the error is fundamental. See Bain.

Accordingly, we reverse Evans’ sentences and remand this cause for the trial court to sentence Evans pursuant to his plea agreement. If the plea agreement cannot be achieved, Evans should be permitted to withdraw his plea.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

PARKER, C.J., and CASANUEVA, J., Concur.

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

WHATLEY, Judge.

Brandon Michael Evans appeals his sentences for two counts of third-degree murder, grand theft, and burglary of a conveyance. He contends that his sentences do not comply with his plea agreement. Although the State agrees that the sentences do not comply with the plea agreement, it argues that Evans is precluded from raising this issue on appeal because he failed to raise it below. See § 924.051, Fla. Stat. (Supp.1996). We conclude that Evans may raise this issue for the first time on appeal because it involves fundamental error and we reverse.

In Bain v. State, 730 So.2d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), this court held that a sentencing error that improperly extends the defendant’s incarceration or supervision would likely be considered fundamental. In the present case, the plea agreement provided that Evans would serve eight years in prison. Although the trial court and both parties attempted to frame a sentence that would result in an eight-year prison term, the written sentence provides that Evans will serve sixteen years in prison. This sentencing error improperly extends Evans’ incarceration, and therefore, the error is fundamental. See Bain.

Accordingly, we reverse Evans’ sentences and remand this cause for the trial court to sentence Evans pursuant to his plea agreement. If the plea agreement cannot be achieved, Evans should be permitted to withdraw his plea.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

PARKER, C.J., and CASANUEVA, J., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

728 So. 2d 802, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 2212, 1999 WL 104449, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evans-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack