Wright v. State, 99-1754.
| Decision Date | 16 September 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 99-1754.,99-1754. |
| Citation | 743 So.2d 103 |
| Parties | Wautara WRIGHT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Appellant, pro se.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General; James W. Rogers, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Wautara Wright appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Wright pled guilty to one count of trafficking in cocaine in an amount between 28 and 200 grams, a violation of § 893.135(1)(b)1.a., Florida Statutes. He received a habitual offender sentence of seventeen years incarceration, although § 893.135(1)(b)1.a. clearly states that violators "shall be sentenced pursuant to the sentencing guidelines and pay a fine of $50,000." Consequently, Wright's habitual offender sentence for a violation of this section fails to comport with statutory limitations and constitutes an illegal sentence. See State v. Mancino, 714 So.2d 429, 433 (Fla.1998); Nelson v. State, 719 So.2d 1230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)(en banc); Stanford v. State, 706 So.2d 900 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). A trial court is not authorized to impose an illegal sentence, even pursuant to a plea agreement. See Williams v. State, 500 So.2d 501 (Fla.1986). Therefore, we reverse the order of the trial court denying Wright's facially sufficient motion. However, because the sentence was imposed pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, we do not vacate the sentence but instead remand to the trial court, where the state should have the opportunity to agree to resentencing within the requirements of § 893.135(1)(b)1.a F.S. If the state does not agree to such resentencing, Wright should be afforded an opportunity to withdraw his plea and the parties may proceed to trial. See Hill v. State, 730 So.2d 322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Williams v. State, 650 So.2d 1054 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).
REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carson v. State, Case No. 1D09-5698 (Fla. App. 4/26/2010), Case No. 1D09-5698.
...the probationary sentence is revoked. Id. at 476. Appellant cites Williams v. State, 500 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1986), and Wright v. State, 743 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), in his reply, arguing that he could not enter a plea to an unlawful sentence. These holdings are neither controlling nor ......
-
Bruno v. State, 1D02-2498.
...with the victim"). An illegal sentence cannot be imposed, even as part of a negotiated plea agreement. See, e.g., Wright v. State, 743 So.2d 103, 103 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) ("A trial court is not authorized to impose an illegal sentence, even pursuant to a plea agreement. See Williams v. State......
-
Bouey v. State
...statute was error because the statute specifically requires a sentence pursuant to the Criminal Punishment Code. See Wright v. State, 743 So.2d 103 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Rainey v. State, 741 So.2d 1207 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Under State v. Mancino, 714 So.2d 429, 433 (Fla.1998), this is an ill......
-
Virgil v. State, 2D04-545.
...28 grams or more but less than 200 grams, the defendant shall be sentenced pursuant to the sentencing guidelines.1 See Wright v. State, 743 So.2d 103 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Therefore, Virgil could not have been sentenced as a habitual felony offender on these two trafficking offenses. See For......