Kirkland v. State, 93-02974
| Citation | 633 So.2d 1138 |
| Decision Date | 18 March 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-02974,93-02974 |
| Parties | 19 Fla. L. Weekly D622 Keith Leon KIRKLAND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Keith Leon Kirkland appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief. We reverse.
Kirkland entered a plea to the charges involved in this case, and it was agreed he would receive a concurrent sentence for each. At the time of his plea he was on "control release" from a prior sentence, and he desired that his new sentences run concurrently with the control release sentence. At the time he was sentenced in the present case, no formal revocation of control release had occurred. The following discussion occurred upon sentencing:
The judgment and sentence are contained within the record before us. As is conceded by the trial court in the order now under review, "The sentencing documents for the instant case do not reflect the sentencing court's wish to run the sentence imposed concurrent with any future sentences." As a result of such omission, once control release was revoked, the sentences were considered consecutive rather than concurrent by the Department of Corrections. See Sec. 921.16(1), Fla.Stat. (1993). Several months later Kirkland brought the apparent oversight to the trial court's attention and he asked that the judgment and sentence be corrected to disclose what he understood to be the trial court's intent. In spite of Kirkland's effort, the trial court denied the motion, concluding that at no time was there authority to impose concurrent sentences and that Kirkland was fully aware of the possibility he might not be entitled to concurrent time.
Kirkland's case bears some resemblance to Richardson v. State, 432 So.2d 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). At the time of his Florida offense Richardson had been on parole from New Jersey. Richardson, like Kirkland, wanted the new sentence to "run concurrently with any sentence received for the parole violation in New Jersey." 432 So.2d at 751. Richardson also expected to be returned to New Jersey as soon as possible, and to serve most of his time in that state. The trial court agreed with Richardson's request, but Richardson's hopes were dashed when New Jersey declined to extradite and prosecute him. Richardson, convinced that he had not received the sentence which he had bargained for, sought to withdraw his plea. This court found that the plea had been "based on a failure of communication or [a] misunderstanding of the facts," in that the trial court had apparently "not informed [Richardson] of the impossibility of carrying out [the] sentence" it had agreed to impose. Id.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylor v. State, 97-2044
...performance of the contract to which we think he is entitled. State v. Frazier, 697 So.2d 944 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Kirkland v. State, 633 So.2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Because, under Doyle v. State, 615 So.2d 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), review denied, 629 So.2d 132 (Fla.1993), cert. denied, 511......
-
Bruce v. State
...to do so. Under circumstances virtually identical to those presented here, the Second District Court of Appeal in Kirkland v. State, 633 So.2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) held that the petitioner was entitled to have his judgment corrected to reflect that the separate sentences imposed would be......
-
Johnson v. State
...that authority. See Eblin v. State, 743 So.2d 94 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Jones v. State, 696 So.2d 429 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Kirkland v. State, 633 So.2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Bruce v. State, 679 So.2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA The postconviction court, however, did not address the alleged discrepancy b......
-
Horton v. State
...relief and remanded to the postconviction court "for it to amend" Eblin's sentences accordingly. Id.; see also Kirkland v. State, 633 So.2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Rosario v. State, 762 So.2d 581 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Bruce v. State, 679 So.2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA In the instant case, the State h......