Hashem v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hashem v. State

61 So. 3d 1290, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 8043, 2011 WL 2135475

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 1, 2011

DocketNos. 3D10-2875, 3D10-2877

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 61 So. 3d 1290 (Hashem 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

Hashem v. State, 61 So. 3d 1290, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 8043, 2011 WL 2135475 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

William Hashem appeals the denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion in which he asserts that the Department of Correction’s allocation of the credit for time served awarded by the trial court effectually violates the sentence imposed as a result of his plea agreement. We have consolidated this appeal from Hashem’s appeal from an order denying habeas corpus in which he asserts the same fundamental issue.

In its response, the state concedes that the defendant is entitled to raise this issue in a 3.850 motion. If the sentence, as written, cannot be carried out because of DOC guidelines, then the defendant is entitled to be resentenced in a manner that effectuates the intent of his plea agreement. State v. Jackson, 842 So.2d 1040 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Williams v. Dept. of Corrections, 734 So.2d 1132 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). On remand, “the trial court should either resentence [defendant] in a manner that effectuates the plea agreement after considering the DOC forfeiture of gain time or allow him to withdraw his plea.” Dellofano v. State, 946 So.2d 127, 129 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). Defendant shall be appointed counsel to represent him.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

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

PER CURIAM.

William Hashem appeals the denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion in which he asserts that the Department of Correction’s allocation of the credit for time served awarded by the trial court effectually violates the sentence imposed as a result of his plea agreement. We have consolidated this appeal from Hashem’s appeal from an order denying habeas corpus in which he asserts the same fundamental issue.

In its response, the state concedes that the defendant is entitled to raise this issue in a 3.850 motion. If the sentence, as written, cannot be carried out because of DOC guidelines, then the defendant is entitled to be resentenced in a manner that effectuates the intent of his plea agreement. State v. Jackson, 842 So.2d 1040 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Williams v. Dept. of Corrections, 734 So.2d 1132 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). On remand, “the trial court should either resentence [defendant] in a manner that effectuates the plea agreement after considering the DOC forfeiture of gain time or allow him to withdraw his plea.” Dellofano v. State, 946 So.2d 127, 129 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). Defendant shall be appointed counsel to represent him.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 So. 3d 1290, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 8043, 2011 WL 2135475, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hashem-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack