Pifer v. State, 2D08-1969.
| Decision Date | 08 April 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D08-1969.,2D08-1969. |
| Citation | 8 So.3d 1154 |
| Parties | Chad PIFER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Chad Pifer, pro se.
Chad Pifer challenges the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse and remand because the postconviction court should have considered his motion as if it were filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
Pifer pleaded guilty to the offenses charged in eighteen separate cases and was sentenced to twelve years' incarceration to be followed by ten years' drug offender probation. In his rule 3.800(a) motion, Pifer alleged that his sentence was illegal because it exceeded the eighteen-year sentencing cap specified in his plea agreement. The postconviction court denied the motion on the ground that Pifer's claim was not cognizable under rule 3.800(a) and must instead be raised through a timely motion to withdraw the plea. See Williams v. State, 873 So.2d 1248 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). The court further found that even if Pifer's motion were construed as a motion to withdraw plea, it would be denied as untimely.
Pifer's claim that his sentence exceeds the terms of his plea agreement is facially sufficient and cognizable under rule 3.850. See Hettick v. State, 977 So.2d 797, 798 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (). Because Pifer's motion was properly sworn and filed within the time limitations of rule 3.850, the postconviction court should have treated it as a motion filed pursuant to that rule. See Riviere v. State, 965 So.2d 845 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). Accordingly, we reverse the postconviction court's order and remand for reconsideration pursuant to rule 3.850. If the court denies the motion, it must attach portions of the record that conclusively refute Pifer's claim.
Reversed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pifer v. State
...denied. Pifer appealed the summary denial of his motion, and this court reversed and remanded for reconsideration. Pifer v. State, 8 So.3d 1154 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).2 On remand, the postconviction court reconsidered Pifer's claim as well as additional claims for postconviction relief that had......
-
Hutchinson v. State, No. 3D08-1639 (Fla. App. 8/12/2009)
...filed pursuant to rule 3.850 and have remanded the motion to the trial court for its consideration of the motion. See Pifer v. State, 8 So. 3d 1154 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Hettick, 977 So. 2d at 797; Riviere v. State, 965 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). However, because the defendant's motion, w......
-
Bailey v. State
...that was inconsistent with the allegedly bargained-for sentence and the trial court's alleged oral pronouncement. See Pifer v. State, 8 So. 3d 1154, 1155 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (holding that the defendant's claim that his sentence exceeded the terms of his plea agreement was cognizable in a rul......
-
Almodovar v. State Of Fla., Case No. 2D10-4128
...motion been properly sworn, the postconviction court could have considered it as a timely rule 3.850 motion. See Pifer v. State, 8 So. 3d 1154 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). Since it was not sworn, however, we must reverse the postconviction court's decision on the merits and remand for the court to d......
-
Post-conviction relief
...rule 3.850 and need not be raised in a rule 3.800(a) motion claiming an illegal sentence or a motion to withdraw a plea. Pifer v. State, 8 So. 3d 1154 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) Third District Court of Appeal While a defendant who proclaims his innocence necessarily “knows” that he did not commit t......