Holland v. State, 68605
| Decision Date | 28 May 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 68605,68605 |
| Citation | 508 So.2d 5,12 Fla. L. Weekly 254 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 254 Bush Wade HOLLAND, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Bush Wade Holland, in pro. per.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Gregory G. Costas, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.
We have for review Holland v. State, 485 So.2d 471 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), because of apparent conflict with State v. Chaplin, 490 So.2d 52 (Fla.1986). Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.
Bush Wade Holland was originally charged with DWI manslaughter (Count I), manslaughter (Count II), leaving the scene of an accident (Count III), and driving with a suspended or revoked license (Count IV). Pursuant to a plea agreement, Count II was nol-prossed. Holland pled nolo contendere to the remaining three counts and was sentenced to twelve years in prison to be followed by three years probation on Count I, five years probation on Count III, and one year probation on Count IV, to run consecutively. He was also ordered to make restitution. There was no appeal from the judgment and sentence.
Holland subsequently filed a 3.850 motion alleging that he was entitled to post-conviction relief on the following grounds: (1) the improper guidelines scoring of sixteen points for an additional offense at conviction when that charge had been nol-prossed; (2) the imposition of an excessive split sentence; and (3) the ordering of restitution without a hearing on the restitution issues. The trial court found this motion to be facially deficient and denied it without a hearing. The district court of appeal affirmed, finding that Holland's argument regarding restitution was without merit and that the other two issues were procedurally barred because they could have been raised on direct appeal. Although the district court recognized that in Chaplin this Court determined that trial courts may correct erroneous calculations in a sentencing guidelines scoresheet at any time, it distinguished the instant case from Chaplin by noting that Holland's sentence was the result of a plea bargain.
Holland's contention of an erroneous guidelines calculation is based on the fact that prior to the plea hearing, a sentencing guidelines scoresheet had been prepared which reflected that Holland fell into the seven to twelve years prison range. Had a new scoresheet been prepared after the plea was accepted, the recommended range would have been three to seven years because of the nol-pros of Count...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reynolds v. State
...775.089(1)(a) & (6) and 948.03(1), Florida Statutes (1989). See Holland v. State, 485 So.2d 471 (1st DCA 1986), pet. for rev. den., 508 So.2d 5 (Fla.1987); Laster v. State, 587 So.2d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Wilson v. State, 407 So.2d 1078 (Fla. 1st DCA In seeking a HFO classification prior......
-
Madrigal v. State, 87-1226
...discretion in sentencing below guideline sentence where state had agreed to downward departure in a plea bargain); see Holland v. State, 508 So.2d 5, 6 (Fla.1987) ("If the sentence is considered [an upward] departure from the guidelines, the plea bargain constituted a valid reason for the d......
-
Jacobs v. State
...clear and convincing reasons for enhancing the sentences. 2 The plea agreement constitutes a valid reason for departure. See Holland v. State, 508 So.2d 5 (Fla.1987); Rowe v. State, 523 So.2d 620 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Denmark v. State, 519 So.2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Quarterman v. State, 50......
-
Byrd v. State
...proposition that "a plea bargain can constitute a valid reason for departure" from the sentencing guidelines. Id. at 1382; Holland v. State, 508 So.2d 5, 6 (Fla. 1987). Indeed, in rejecting Appellant's second argument pursuant to the holdings in Quarterman and Holland, we need look no furth......