Forshee v. State

579 So. 2d 388, 1991 WL 82069
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMay 17, 1991
Docket88-01914
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 579 So. 2d 388 (Forshee 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
Forshee v. State, 579 So. 2d 388, 1991 WL 82069 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

579 So.2d 388 (1991)

Eric FORSHEE, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 88-01914.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 17, 1991.

*389 James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Deborah K. Brueckheimer, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William I. Munsey, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Eric Forshee, challenges the judgment and sentence imposed upon him after he pled guilty to attempted capital sexual battery. We reverse and remand.

The appellant was charged with capital sexual battery. The state, as a result of plea negotiations, agreed to accept a guilty plea to the lesser included offense of attempted capital sexual battery if the appellant was sentenced to fourteen years imprisonment followed by twenty years probation. The trial court accepted the plea and entered a judgment and sentence in accordance with the terms and conditions of the plea. This timely appeal followed.

We agree with the appellant's contention that the trial court imposed an illegal sentence. The appellant pled guilty to attempted capital sexual battery, a first degree felony. See §§ 794.011(2), 777.04(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (1987). Section 775.082(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1987), provides that the maximum punishment for a first degree felony is thirty years in prison. In this case, the appellant was sentenced to fourteen years in prison followed by twenty years of probation. Although a split sentence of state prison and probation is permissible, the total sanction cannot exceed the maximum term provided by statute. Saint v. State, 562 So.2d 866 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Further, because the sentence is illegal it must be reversed despite the appellant's failure to object, Watson v. State, 426 So.2d 1300 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), and the sentence having been imposed as a result of plea negotiations. Griner v. State, 524 So.2d 487 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).

If the trial court had imposed this sentence after a trial, or if the appellant had pled guilty without his sentence being part of the plea negotiations, we would reverse and remand for the imposition of a legal sentence. In this case, however, the state agreed to allow the appellant to plead to a lesser included offense provided the court imposed the sentence agreed to by the parties. The appellant and the court agreed to this sentence, which all parties mistakenly believed was legal. The state's negotiation was clearly based upon the premise that the appellant would receive the fourteen years in prison followed by the twenty years probation. Just as a defendant is not bound by a misconceived bargain, the state likewise is not bound to accept a sentence it did not bargain for. To allow this plea to stand would allow the appellant to get more than he bargained for and deny the state what it bargained for. The remedy under circumstances such as those present is to set aside the plea and reinstate the original charge, and we, accordingly, so order. Jolly v. State, 392 So.2d 54 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).

Upon remand, if the parties once again enter into a plea agreement and the sentence imposed includes probation, we remind the trial court that a special condition of probation is invalid if it (1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, (2) relates to conduct which is not in itself criminal, and (3) requires or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality. Rodriguez v. State, 378 So.2d 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). The order of probation in this case *390 included a special condition that prohibited the appellant from entering any place or business where the primary purpose of that business is the sale of alcoholic beverages. The record does not support the imposition of such a condition of probation. Rodriguez.

Reversed and remanded with instructions.

SCHOONOVER, C.J., and FRANK and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.

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

Related

JOSE GUERRERO LOZANO, JR. v. STATE OF FLORIDA
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018
DAVID W. HOLMES v. STATE OF FLORIDA
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018
State v. Luxenburg
13 So. 3d 137 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)
Tucker v. State
864 So. 2d 580 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)
McNeal v. State
859 So. 2d 579 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
Bruno v. State
837 So. 2d 521 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
Bull v. State
782 So. 2d 921 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Williams v. State
770 So. 2d 713 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
Gibson v. State
772 So. 2d 35 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
Howell v. State
764 So. 2d 780 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
Adkinson v. State
743 So. 2d 1180 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
Rainey v. State
741 So. 2d 1207 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
Morales v. State
712 So. 2d 474 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
Akins v. State
691 So. 2d 587 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
Howe v. State
596 So. 2d 1227 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
579 So. 2d 388, 1991 WL 82069, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/forshee-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.