Lightfoot v. State
| Decision Date | 28 November 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-792,84-792 |
| Citation | 459 So.2d 1157 |
| Parties | William Junior LIGHTFOOT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jerry Hill, Public Defender, and William H. Pasch, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Michael J. Kotler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Appellant, William Junior Lightfoot, appeals his sentences on eight counts of armed robbery, one count of burglary, one count of grand theft, and a misdemeanor count of discharging a firearm in public. We affirm. Appellant's sole point on this appeal is whether the trial court erred in deviating from the sentencing guidelines.
Appellant was charged in eight separate informations with separate and distinct offenses of armed robbery. Another information charged one count of burglary and one count of grand theft. Another information charged the separate misdemeanor offense of discharging a firearm in public. All of the offenses occurred prior to October 1, 1983, but sentencing took place thereafter. Appellant filed motions to suppress in all of the cases except one armed robbery and the misdemeanor offense. After denial of the motions to suppress, while reserving his right to appeal those denials, appellant entered no contest pleas to all charges. Appellant does not raise in this appeal the issue of the denial of his motions to suppress and we, therefore, do not consider them.
It is not clear from the record whether there was a plea agreement entered into with the state. A different assistant state attorney than the one who had prosecuted the cases and negotiated any plea appeared for the state at the plea hearing. Appellant's attorney, an assistant public defender, at one point indicates that the pleas are "basically, this is to some extent a straight-up plea...." It is our understanding of current criminal law jargon that a "straight-up plea" means a plea that does not involve previously agreed to conditions by the state. Yet, later in the same plea hearing, appellant's attorney represents that the minimum mandatory sentences on four of the armed robbery charges would run consecutively, but that the state had "agreed in prior conversations that the minimum mandatories would not exceed the maximum time that would be imposed under the guidelines." The assistant state attorney present at the plea hearing remained silent as to any plea agreements.
It is clear that appellant affirmatively elected to be sentenced pursuant to sentencing guidelines, and the trial judge acknowledged that he would be sentenced "in accordance with the guidelines." The court also very clearly informed appellant of the maximum sentences he could receive in each case. Subsequently, at appellant's sentencing hearing, the trial judge imposed consecutive minimum mandatory sentences of three years each on four of the armed robbery charges, for a total of twelve years. The sentences on the remaining offenses were imposed to run...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fannin v. State, 2D97-250.
...it. See, e.g., Mazza v. State, 499 So.2d 30 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Prentice v. State, 469 So.2d 798 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Lightfoot v. State, 459 So.2d 1157 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (consecutive minimum mandatories for separate offenses). In Harden v. State, 595 So.2d 585 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), which we ......
-
Campbell v. State, 90-02705
...Gladden v. State, 556 So.2d 1228 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Chatman v. State, 509 So.2d 1163 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Lightfoot v. State, 459 So.2d 1157 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); cf., State v. Ames, 467 So.2d 994 In our view, the trial court's determination to sentence Campbell to 20 years for the armed ro......
-
Tanner v. State, 84-1383
...DANAHY and LEHAN, JJ., concur. 1 Espey v. State, 407 So.2d 300 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).2 Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(9); Lightfoot v. State, 459 So.2d 1157 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). ...
-
Walker v. State, AX-372
...lesser guidelines sentence and there was no necessity for the trial court to justify departing from the guidelines. Lightfoot v. State, 459 So.2d 1157 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). years. 1 This fundamental error requires that the sentence imposed&nb......