From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bright v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Sep 27, 1996
679 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

Summary

In Bright, the issue was properly preserved for review because the defendant filed a motion to withdraw his plea which was considered by the trial court.

Summary of this case from Rackley v. State

Opinion

No. 96-92.

August 23, 1996. Rehearing Denied September 27, 1996.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Osceola County, Jose Rodriguez, J.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Dan D. Hallenberg, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and David H. Foxman, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.


Appellant complains on appeal of the refusal of the lower court to allow him to withdraw his plea and he contends that he was given an improper upward departure sentence. We find no merit in appellant's first argument; however, it does appear that appellant's sentence is an invalid departure.

Appellant's maximum allowable sentence under the guidelines was 208.125 months. The lower court, by stacking the minimum mandatories on six of appellant's charges, sentenced the appellant to a total of eighteen years (216 months). It appears from the record that it was recognized below that this sentence constituted an upward departure. It also appears to have been the view of the lower court that this departure had been agreed to by appellant as part of his plea agreement. Although the colloquy during the course of the plea is not crystal clear, we cannot find in it an agreement to an upward departure sentence.

The agreement was that, in exchange for his plea to the many pending cases against him, the state would agree to recommend a guidelines sentence totalling twelve years. It was also plainly agreed, however, that if appellant, who had requested to be released on his own recognizance pending sentencing, did not appear as scheduled for his sentencing, then the state's recommendation of a twelve-year guideline sentence would be withdrawn. In other words, it is clear that appellant was fully aware that, by failing to appear for sentencing as scheduled, he would forfeit any right to the twelve-year sentence recommendation, but the record does not reflect that he agreed to an upward departure should he fail to appear. Since the plea agreement is the only arguable basis for an upward departure in this case, the departure sentence of eighteen years must be vacated and the cause remanded for a sentence to be imposed that falls within the guidelines range.

SENTENCE VACATED and REMANDED.

DAUKSCH, HARRIS and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Bright v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Sep 27, 1996
679 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

In Bright, the issue was properly preserved for review because the defendant filed a motion to withdraw his plea which was considered by the trial court.

Summary of this case from Rackley v. State
Case details for

Bright v. State

Case Details

Full title:ALBERT BRIGHT, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Sep 27, 1996

Citations

679 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

Citing Cases

Bareis v. State

Accordingly, we conclude that a departure sentence was within the contemplation of the plea agreement and was…

Rackley v. State

Thus the trial court never had the opportunity to consider that motion and the appellant failed to preserve…