State v. Whitehead

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Whitehead

798 So. 2d 815, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 15154, 2001 WL 1295201

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 26, 2001

DocketNo. 5D00-2818

StatusPublished

This text of 798 So. 2d 815 (State v. Whitehead) 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

State v. Whitehead, 798 So. 2d 815, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 15154, 2001 WL 1295201 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

GRIFFIN, J.

This is another Heggs resentencing appeal. This time it is the State who complains. We reverse.

During the trial of defendant, Gerald Whitehead [“defendant”], while the jury was deliberating and the judge was considering a mistrial, plea negotiations took place. The judge asked for the specific number of months that the prosecutor was offering, and the prosecutor said, “everything is 150, 149.8.” The judge said that was the bottom of the guidelines and the defendant should consider accepting this plea, rather than taking the chances of a conviction and being sentenced as a habitual felony offender. After the judge’s explanation, the defendant decided to plead nolo contendere and “take the bottom of the guidelines.” He was sentenced pursuant to the plea agreement to 149.8 months.

Defendant then filed a direct appeal, which we per curiam affirmed. On September 19, 2000, defendant filed a Motion to Correct Sentence, arguing that he should be resentenced based on the supreme court’s decision in Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000). Over the State’s objection, defendant was resentenced to ninety-six months imprisonment, the bottom of the 1994 guidelines. The judge stated:

[B]ased on the facts of this case and the transcript, it seems clear to the Court it was a quid pro quo in his agreement that the Defendant would change a plea and plea [sic] no contest or guilty, provided he got the bottom of the guidelines.

We reverse because the sentence defendant received initially would not have been a departure under the 1994 guidelines. This case is controlled by the court’s deci[816]*816sion in Dudek v. State, 783 So.2d 331 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

COBB and PALMER, JJ., concur.

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

GRIFFIN, J.

This is another Heggs resentencing appeal. This time it is the State who complains. We reverse.

During the trial of defendant, Gerald Whitehead [“defendant”], while the jury was deliberating and the judge was considering a mistrial, plea negotiations took place. The judge asked for the specific number of months that the prosecutor was offering, and the prosecutor said, “everything is 150, 149.8.” The judge said that was the bottom of the guidelines and the defendant should consider accepting this plea, rather than taking the chances of a conviction and being sentenced as a habitual felony offender. After the judge’s explanation, the defendant decided to plead nolo contendere and “take the bottom of the guidelines.” He was sentenced pursuant to the plea agreement to 149.8 months.

Defendant then filed a direct appeal, which we per curiam affirmed. On September 19, 2000, defendant filed a Motion to Correct Sentence, arguing that he should be resentenced based on the supreme court’s decision in Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000). Over the State’s objection, defendant was resentenced to ninety-six months imprisonment, the bottom of the 1994 guidelines. The judge stated:

[B]ased on the facts of this case and the transcript, it seems clear to the Court it was a quid pro quo in his agreement that the Defendant would change a plea and plea [sic] no contest or guilty, provided he got the bottom of the guidelines.

We reverse because the sentence defendant received initially would not have been a departure under the 1994 guidelines. This case is controlled by the court’s deci[816]*816sion in Dudek v. State, 783 So.2d 331 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

COBB and PALMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

798 So. 2d 815, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 15154, 2001 WL 1295201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-whitehead-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack