Peterson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Peterson v. State

752 So. 2d 114, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2178, 2000 WL 235145

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 3, 2000

DocketNo. 5D99-3648

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 752 So. 2d 114 (Peterson 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

Peterson v. State, 752 So. 2d 114, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2178, 2000 WL 235145 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

W. SHARP, J.

Peterson filed a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) to correct an illegal sentence because the trial court imposed a departure sentence without giving written reasons. The trial court summarily denied the motion. We affirm.

The record attached clearly refutes Peterson’s claim. The guidelines scoresheet in the record indicates the parties stipulated to an upward departure sentence, pursuant to a negotiated plea because the defendant, Peterson, had engaged in a “crime spree.” A plea bargain is a valid ground for departure. Jauregui v. State 652 So.2d 898 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); State v. Jordan, 630 So.2d 1171 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).

In addition, the sentence which Peterson received does not exceed the statutory maximum for the crimes to which he entered his guilty plea. See State v. Moten, 698 So.2d 1345 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).

AFFIRMED.

HARRIS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

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

W. SHARP, J.

Peterson filed a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) to correct an illegal sentence because the trial court imposed a departure sentence without giving written reasons. The trial court summarily denied the motion. We affirm.

The record attached clearly refutes Peterson’s claim. The guidelines scoresheet in the record indicates the parties stipulated to an upward departure sentence, pursuant to a negotiated plea because the defendant, Peterson, had engaged in a “crime spree.” A plea bargain is a valid ground for departure. Jauregui v. State 652 So.2d 898 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); State v. Jordan, 630 So.2d 1171 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).

In addition, the sentence which Peterson received does not exceed the statutory maximum for the crimes to which he entered his guilty plea. See State v. Moten, 698 So.2d 1345 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).

AFFIRMED.

HARRIS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

752 So. 2d 114, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2178, 2000 WL 235145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peterson-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

W. SHARP, J.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack