ELLIS RICHARDSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Ellis Richardson challenged the denial of his motion to vacate his no-contest plea for grand theft, arguing that the trial court's sentencing condition—running concurrent with a New Jersey sentence—was impossible to fulfill because no New Jersey sentence existed at the time of sentencing. The court reversed and allowed withdrawal of the plea because the defendant did not receive the bargained-for sentence.
The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that Richardson must be permitted to withdraw his plea because he agreed to plead based on the mistaken assumption that his Florida sentence would run concurrently with a New Jersey sentence, and this benefit could not be realized since no New Jersey sentence existed.
[1] A defendant may be permitted to withdraw a plea of no contest when the conditions of the plea bargain have not been met due to circumstances beyond the defendant's contro…
[2] A Florida court may direct that a sentence be served concurrently with a sentence from another jurisdiction only if an existing sentence in that jurisdiction can be ident…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Under section 921.16(2), Florida Statutes (1981), a Florida court may direct that a sentence which is imposed may be served concurrently with a sentence from another jurisdiction. The statutory language infers that there must be an existing 'sentence in that jurisdiction.”
Establishes the legal requirement that a concurrent sentence arrangement requires an existing sentence in the other jurisdiction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRichardson pleaded no contest to grand theft on June 2, 1982, conditioning his plea on receiving a concurrent sentence with any sentence from a parole…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Plea Bargain Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Judge.
Appellant, Ellis Richardson, seeks review of the denial of a motion to vacate sentence, pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure, in order that he be given the opportunity to withdraw his plea of no contest and proceed to trial. We reverse.
On June 2, 1982, appellant pled no contest to a charge of grand theft. At the time, he was on parole from New Jersey for a burglary committed there in 1980. Prior to entering his plea in the ease sub judice, he urged that the conditions of his plea be that he receive a sentence concurrent with any sentence he might receive for the New Jersey offense. After voluntarily entering his plea, he was adjudged guilty. He then waived a presentence investigation so as to save time “to get on back to New Jersey.” The trial court imposed the maximum sentence of five years with the provision that appellant’s sentence run concurrently with any sentence received for the parole violation in New Jersey.
The following October, appellant filed a motion to vacate sentence, alleging that the New Jersey authorities had failed to transport him to that state and that he remained incarcerated in Florida. Since the trial court lacked jurisdiction to compel the New Jersey officials to act, the conditions of appellant’s plea bargain have not been met.
Under section 921.16(2), Florida Statutes (1981), a Florida court may direct that a sentence which is imposed may be served concurrently with a sentence from another jurisdiction. The statutory language infers that there must be an existing ' sentence in that jurisdiction. Cf., Newman v. State, 409 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).
Additionally, the date of commencement of a sentence cannot be vague or uncertain. Keel v. State, 321 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). Although appellant had been placed on parole, the New Jersey authorities chose not to prosecute him for his subsequent violation.
Thus, no sentence existed for that violation in New Jersey when he was sentenced by the trial court in Florida. Under the present circumstances, appellant could serve the entire Florida sentence before serving any time in New Jersey, negating all benefit of the plea bargain.
When a defendant moves to withdraw his plea of guilty, the court should be liberal in exercising its discretion to permit the withdrawal, especially where it is shown that the plea was based on a failure of communication or misunderstanding of the facts. Brown v. State, 245 So. 2d 41 (Fla.1971).
A withdrawal should not be denied in a case if the ends of justice would be subserved by permitting it. Jordan v. State, 107 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958).
Appellant herein agreed to plead on the mistaken assumption that his Florida sentence would be served concurrently with time imposed in New Jersey. Since he did not receive the sentence for which he originally bargained and was not informed of the impossibility of carrying out that sentence, the interests of justice mandate that he be given the opportunity to withdraw his plea.
Accordingly, appellant’s judgment and sentence are reversed and the cause remanded with directions to permit appellant to withdraw his plea of no contest and enter a plea of not guilty, if he desires to do so after he has been advised of the proper alternatives.
HOBSON, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (22 total)
-
Setzer v. State, 575 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…nt proves that the plea was entered without a proper understanding of its nature and consequences or was based upon a failure of communication or misunderstanding of the facts. Elias v. State, 531 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Richardson v. State, 432 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1983); Stapleton v. State, 239 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970). Here, in his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, appellant alleges as good cause the fact that he did not understand that by agreeing to be adjudicated as an habitual offe…
-
Taylor v. State, 710 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…235 (Fla.1996); Booker v. State, 693 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Turner v. State, 689 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Williams v. State, 618 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Coward v. State, 547 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Richardson v. State, 432 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). We therefore reverse the denial of that relief below. Perhaps the more difficult question is the appropriate procedural means available to effect the parties’ agreement by granting the defendant what in essence is the specific…
-
Geiger v. State, 532 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…rial court approved. Accordingly, the trial court erred when it refused to permit Geiger to withdraw her pleas. See Davis v. State, 473 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Alvis v. State, 421 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); see also Richardson v. State, 432 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (court should be liberal in exercising its discretion in permitting a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea). We also must address the additional criminal offenses to which Geiger pleaded nolo contendere and the charges which the s…
Previewing 3 of 22 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 245 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 1971)
- Jordan v. State, 107 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- Kubalski v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 321 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Keel v. State, 321 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Quinnie Newman v. State, 409 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)