Opinion
Case No. 1D05-1482.
Opinion filed June 9, 2005.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County, L.P. Haddock, Judge.
Appellant, pro se.
Charlie Crist, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
AFFIRMED.
KAHN, BROWNING, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
CASE NO: 1D05-1482
ASSIGNED TO: Merits Panel [9]-4-7 CONF. DATE: 7/26/05 SUMMARY BY: Celeste S. Burns
IN OUT
CHAUNCEY WRIGHT, J. KAHN _________/________ Appellant, v. J. BROWNING _________/_________
STATE OF FLORIDA, J. THOMAS _________/_________ Appellee.
PLEASE RELEASE: ______________________________ ______________________________
ADD THIS SUMMARY TO K DIRECTORY (WEST KM) YES____ NO____ NOTE TO JUDGES
Each judge will place his/her initials in the left margin of the first page of the attached opinion to indicate his/her concurrence therewith. If he/she dissents without opinion, the word "dissents" should be written following the initials. If he/she dissents with opinion or writes a special concurring opinion, it should be noted following the initials and dissenting or special concurring opinion attached.
REMARKS RECOMMENDATION
TO: MERITS PANEL
FROM: Celeste S. Burns
DATE: April 14, 2005
CASE NO: 1D05-1482
CASE NAME: CHAUNCEY WRIGHT v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Type of motion being appealed: 3.800(a).
Briefs filed: None.
Attachments: None.
Recommendation: This Court should affirm the trial court's summary denial of the appellant's motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
On or about April 5, 1991, pursuant to a plea, the appellant was sentenced to 24 years' imprisonment for second-degree murder. (R. at 1, 4.) The record does not indicate whether she filed a direct appeal. She filed the instant motion alleging that her sentence is illegal because the trial court failed to file written reasons for departure and her scoresheet was erroneously calculated. (R. at 1.) The trial court summarily denied the appellant's motion as facially insufficient, (R. at 6), and by way of a timely notice of appeal, the appellant seeks review of the trial court's order. (R. at 7.) This Court should affirm the trial court's summary denial as the appellant has failed to demonstrate a legal entitlement to relief.
First, the appellant alleges that her sentence is illegal because the trial court failed to file written reasons for departure. (R. at 1.) This argument is not cognizable in a rule 3.800 motion because the fact that the trial court did not state a valid reason for departure does not render the appellant's sentence illegal for the purposes of rule 3.800(a) where the sentence falls within the statutory maximum. Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193, 1196 (Fla. 1995).
Second, the appellant claims that her sentence is illegal because her scoresheet was erroneously calculated. (R. at 1.) This allegation is facially insufficient because the appellant was sentenced pursuant to a plea. Her attachment indicates that she pled to the offense and her departure sentence was imposed in accordance with an agreement between the state and the defense. (R. at 4.) The appellant does not allege that her plea was conditioned on being sentenced inside the guidelines. Thus, it appears that her sentence is directed by the agreed-upon provisions in a plea agreement, not a guidelines scoresheet.See Rowe v. State, 496 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (holding that the sentence imposed was a bargained-for sentence pursuant to a plea agreement which was not subject to the guidelines). Therefore, even if the appellant's sentence exceeded the guidelines range as a result of a scoresheet error, her sentence is not illegal if the sentence was imposed in accordance with a valid plea agreement. Boerstler v. State, 622 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). The appellant has not alleged, nor does the record reflect, that the plea was conditioned on her sentence being within the sentencing guidelines. See id. Therefore, the appellant failed to state a facially sufficient claim, and the trial court properly denied the appellant's motion.
Accordingly, this Court should affirm the trial court's summary denial of the appellant's motion for postconviction relief.
See attached proposed PCA.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED