State v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 06 July 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 84789,84789 |
| Parties | 20 Fla. L. Weekly S313 STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Bobby WILSON, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Georgina Jimenez-Orosa, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for petitioner.
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender and Karen E. Ehrlich, Asst. Public Defender, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, West Palm Beach, for respondent.
We have for review Wilson v. State, 645 So.2d 1042 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), wherein the district court certified conflict with Bell v. State, 624 So.2d 821 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), review denied, 634 So.2d 622 (Fla.1994). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, Sec. 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We quash Wilson.
Wilson was charged with robbery on April 26, 1993, and two days later the State filed written notice of intent to seek enhanced penalties under section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1993), the habitual felony offender statute. At the plea hearing on July 2, 1993, Wilson submitted a written plea offering a plea of nolo contendere and containing this provision:
7. I understand that if I plead Nolo Contendere to these charges ... the maximum possible penalty is 15 years + $10,000 fine.
The fifteen-year limit was the standard statutory maximum for Wilson's crime, a second-degree felony, under section 775.082, Florida Statutes (1993), which supersedes and caps guidelines ranges. 1
The following colloquy then took place concerning sentencing as an habitual offender:
THE COURT: Anything further on the known and voluntary nature of the plea?
MS. CRAFT [prosecutor]: Your Honor, just that [prosecutor] Ms. Hill did file a notice of intent to seek enhanced penalties on April 28th and I just want to make sure that Mr. Wilson is aware of that.
I do not know what she is going to recommend for sentence.
Sentencing as an habitual offender, an alternative to sentencing under the guidelines, carries maximum sentences that are roughly double the standard statutory maximums. See Sec. 775.084, Fla.Stat. (1993). The maximum for Wilson's crime as an habitual offender was thirty years' imprisonment, as opposed to the fifteen year limit mentioned in his plea petition.
The court accepted Wilson's plea of nolo contendere, ordered a presentence investigation, and deferred sentencing. At sentencing on August 23, 1993, the court sentenced Wilson as an habitual felony offender to twenty-two years imprisonment followed by three years' probation. On appeal, the district court concluded that the trial court had failed to meet the requirements of Ashley v. State, 614 So.2d 486 (Fla.1993), before accepting Wilson's plea. The court reversed the sentence and remanded for imposition of a sentence within the fifteen-year limit set forth in Wilson's written plea. The State petitioned for review.
This Court in Ashley held that before a court can habitualize a defendant pursuant to a plea the court must ensure that the plea is knowing and intelligent:
In sum, we hold that in order for a defendant to be habitualized following a guilty or nolo plea, the following must take place prior to acceptance of the plea: 1) The defendant must be given written notice of intent to habitualize, and 2) the court must confirm that the defendant is personally aware of the possibility and reasonable consequences of habitualization.
Ashley, 614 So.2d at 490 (footnote omitted). We explained that the "reasonable consequences of habitualization" include "the maximum habitual offender term for the charged offense, [and] the fact that habitualization may affect the possibility of early release through certain programs." Id. at 490 n. 8.
In the present case, the first Ashley requirement was met--the State filed written notice of intent to habitualize before the plea was accepted. The second requirement, however, was not. Although the court confirmed that Wilson was aware of the possibility of habitualization, it failed to confirm that he knew of the maximum habitual offender term for the charged offense and that he could be ineligible for certain programs affecting early release.
The issue posed is whether, in light of this error, the case should be remanded for imposition of a sentence in conformity with the plea petition or whether Wilson should simply be given the chance to withdraw his plea. Wilson has not filed a motion to withdraw his plea and argues that the fifteen-year limit in the petition should be enforced. The State, on the other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dickey v. State, Case No. 1D03-2489 (FL 2/15/2005), Case No. 1D03-2489.
...habitual felony offender sentence must be told that habitualization could affect the possibility of early release. See State v. Wilson, 658 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1995); Ashley v. State, 614 So. 2d 486, 490 n. 8 (Fla. 1993). Nonetheless, despite the fact that failure to advise as to collateral co......
-
Major v. State
...a defendant must understand the maximum penalty that may be imposed for the charged offense. See 316 So.2d at 271. 4. In State v. Wilson, 658 So.2d 521 (Fla. 1995), we applied Ashley to a case where the petitioner alleged that at his plea colloquy the trial court misinformed the petitioner ......
-
Peart v. State
...defendant was prejudiced by the imposition of an enhanced sentence predicated upon the uninformed plea. Recently, in State v. Wilson, 658 So.2d 521 (Fla.1995), we considered similar facts and directed that the defendant be given "the opportunity to withdraw his plea and proceed to trial if ......
-
Event Depot Corp. v. Frank
... ... Copeland , 210 So.3d 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017).4 The Florida State University College of Law has digitized the Florida Statutes for 1941 and 1955 to 1996. See Digitized Legal Collections , Florida State University ... ...
-
Avoiding deportation by vacating state court convictions.
...D.C.A. 1984). (9) FLA. R. CRIM. P. 3.172(f); Demartine v. State, 647 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1994). (10) See, e.g., State v. Wilson, 658 So. 2d 521 (Fla. (11) Koenig v. State, 597 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 1992). (12) Buffa v. State, 641 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1994). (13) Strickland v. Washi......