Hettick v. State
| Decision Date | 04 April 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D07-3792.,2D07-3792. |
| Citation | 977 So.2d 797 |
| Parties | Michael L. HETTICK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Michael L. Hettick appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Although Mr. Hettick's sentence is not illegal, we reverse and remand because the postconviction court should have considered his motion as if it were filed pursuant to rule 3.850.
Mr. Hettick's single claim alleges that the aggregate of his concurrent sentences in three separate cases exceeded a negotiated plea of "83 mos FSP cap concurrent," as reflected on the written plea form. Mr. Hettick was actually sentenced to concurrent terms totaling 120 months: 60 months in prison, followed by 2 years of community control and 3 years of drug`offender probation. In his motion, Mr. Hettick asked the postconviction court to correct his erroneous sentences by resentencing him to concurrent terms totaling no more than 83 months.
The postconviction court denied the motion because the 60-month incarcerative portion of Mr. Hettick's concurrent sentences did not conflict with the written plea agreement's limitation of the prison term to 83 months. The postconviction court also found that Mr. Hettick did not allege and the written plea form did not reflect any agreements as to the length of postincarcerative supervision; therefore, the sentences did not violate the terms of his negotiated plea.
There are two problems with the postconviction court's order. First, the postconviction court should have recognized that Mr. Hettick's claim was not cognizable pursuant to rule 3.800(a). The thrust of Mr. Hettick's claim is that the trial court violated the terms of his negotiated plea agreement, rendering his plea involuntary. Properly pleaded, this type of claim is cognizable under rule 3.850. See Dellofano v. State, 946 So.2d 127, 129 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (Lawson, J., concurring specially) (). Because the motion was properly sworn and was filed within the time limitations of that rule, the postconviction court should have treated it as such. See Riviere v. State, 965 So.2d 845 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).
Second, the postconviction court's reasons for rejecting Mr. Hettick's claim were flawed. The postconviction court essentially concluded that the silence of the plea agreement as to the length of postincarcerative supervision meant that the court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hutchinson v. State, No. 3D08-1639 (Fla. App. 8/12/2009)
...with his 2001 plea agreement—is, however, not cognizable as a rule 3.800 motion to correct illegal sentence. See Hettick v. State, 977 So. 2d 797, 798 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (holding that because the thrust of the defendant's claim was that the trial court's order violated the terms of the nego......
-
McClough v. State
...is without prejudice to McClough filing a timely motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Hettick v. State, 977 So.2d 797, 798 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). Affirmed.WHATLEY and KHOUZAM, JJ., ...
-
Sweet v. State, 2D07-5066.
...there is no procedure for a "motion to enforce a plea agreement," this claim must be filed pursuant to rule 3.850. See Hettick v. State, 977 So.2d 797 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (quoting Dellofano v. State, 946 So.2d 127, 129 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)). Sweet's sentence is the product of a negotiated ple......
-
Phillips v. State
...to Appellant filing a timely motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See McClough , 74 So.3d at 160 ; Hettick v. State , 977 So.2d 797, 798 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).Affirmed. Gerber, C.J., And Warner, J., concur.1 We offer no opinion on the merits of such a motion should one be ...
-
Charging a crime, arraignment and pleas
...court cannot assume from the silence of the document that defendant understood that the cap applied to DOC time only. Hettick v. State, 977 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) When the court agrees to defer sentencing, and imposes the requirement that defendant not get into trouble before sentenc......