Pelegrina v. State

763 So. 2d 1231, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 6805, 2000 WL 718169
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 6, 2000·No. No. 1D99-256·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Because the plea agreement permitted a sentence at the trial court’s discretion, we affirm the denial of appellant’s motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). However, because it appears from the record that the parties (including appellant and his attorney) may have been under the mistaken impression that the 1995 sentencing guidelines, rather than the 1992, were applicable, and that, pursuant to the latter, the maximum permissible sentence would have been significantly shorter than that imposed pursuant to the former, our affirmance is without prejudice to appellant’s right timely to file a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 seeking to withdraw his plea.

MINER, WEBSTER and LAWRENCE, JJ., CONCUR.

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

Pelegrina v. State, 763 So. 2d 1231, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 6805, 2000 WL 718169 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

763 So. 2d 1231 (Pelegrina v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Peterhoff v. State
890 So. 2d 1130 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)