Herrera v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Herrera v. State

789 So. 2d 417, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 8076, 2001 WL 649667

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 13, 2001

DocketNo. 3D01-1066

StatusPublished

This text of 789 So. 2d 417 (Herrera 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

Herrera v. State, 789 So. 2d 417, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 8076, 2001 WL 649667 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from an order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800. We affirm.

[418]*418Defendant pled no contest in 1997 to charges of trafficking in illegal drugs and importing a controlled substance. In exchange for his plea, he received a sentence of twelve years in state prison and a fine of $250,000.00.

In his 3.800 motion, defendant argued that he had not agreed to the monetary fine, and that he was therefore entitled to have the $250,000.00 fine and a statutory costs surcharge stricken. The trial court properly denied the relief sought. Pursuant to section 893.135(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1997), defendant faced a minimum term of imprisonment of twenty-five years and a fine of $500,000.00. The sentence imposed was authorized by law. Although it may have exceeded the agreed-upon sentence under the plea agreement, it was not an unlawful sentence and is therefore not subject to collateral review under rule 3.800. See Flores v. State, 745 So.2d 977 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Graham v. State, 641 So.2d 511 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Defendant’s proper remedy would have been to file a 3.850 motion within the two-year period provided by the rule; such a motion is now time-barred.

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from an order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800. We affirm.

[418]*418Defendant pled no contest in 1997 to charges of trafficking in illegal drugs and importing a controlled substance. In exchange for his plea, he received a sentence of twelve years in state prison and a fine of $250,000.00.

In his 3.800 motion, defendant argued that he had not agreed to the monetary fine, and that he was therefore entitled to have the $250,000.00 fine and a statutory costs surcharge stricken. The trial court properly denied the relief sought. Pursuant to section 893.135(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1997), defendant faced a minimum term of imprisonment of twenty-five years and a fine of $500,000.00. The sentence imposed was authorized by law. Although it may have exceeded the agreed-upon sentence under the plea agreement, it was not an unlawful sentence and is therefore not subject to collateral review under rule 3.800. See Flores v. State, 745 So.2d 977 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Graham v. State, 641 So.2d 511 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Defendant’s proper remedy would have been to file a 3.850 motion within the two-year period provided by the rule; such a motion is now time-barred.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

789 So. 2d 417, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 8076, 2001 WL 649667, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herrera-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack