From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Barthel v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Sep 19, 2003
862 So. 2d 28 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

Summary

holding that where an agreed upon minimum-mandatory sentence was illegal, remedy was not automatic resentencing, instead, the state would be given the opportunity to agree to resentencing or to withdraw from the plea agreement and proceed to trial on the original charges

Summary of this case from Gamble v. State

Opinion

Case No. 2D03-1728.

Opinion filed September 19, 2003.

Appeal pursuant to Fla.R.App.P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Rex Martin Barbas, Judge.


Richard Barthel appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm without discussion the trial court's order as to Barthel's first three claims, but we reverse and remand as to his last claim.

Barthel entered a negotiated plea of guilty to ten heroin-related offenses. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent sentences of ten years in prison on all ten counts and imposed a three-year minimum mandatory sentence on six of the ten counts. In his motion, Barthel claimed that the three-year minimum mandatory sentences are illegal based on this court's opinion in Taylor v. State, 818 So.2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA),review dismissed, 821 So.2d 302 (Fla. 2002) (holding chapter 99-188, Laws of Florida, which required minimum mandatory prison sentences for certain drug offenses, unconstitutional in violation of the single-subject rule). He further alleged that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the imposition of the illegal minimum mandatory terms and asked that his conviction and sentence be vacated.

The trial court concluded that Barthel's counsel was not ineffective for failing to challenge the minimum mandatory terms because the legislature had retroactively reenacted the amendments held unconstitutional in Taylor, thus curing the single-subject violation. However, prior to the trial court's denial of Barthel's motion for postconviction relief, this court held the legislature's retroactive reenactment of the provisions of chapter 99-188 to be invalid. Green v. State, 839 So.2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Thus, even though the trial court may have been correct in its determination that trial counsel was not ineffective, Barthel's minimum mandatory sentences are illegal and the trial court erred by denying relief. An illegal sentence cannot be imposed pursuant to a negotiated plea and an illegal sentence is subject to correction at any time, including collaterally. See Bruno v. State, 837 So.2d 521 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).

Barthel is not entitled to automatic resentencing, however, because his sentences were the result of a negotiated plea in which the State agreed to reduce the original charges. On remand, the State must be given the option to either agree to a resentencing in accordance with Taylor or withdraw from the plea agreement and proceed to trial on the original charges. Bruno, 837 So.2d at 523.

As we did in Green, we certify conflict with Carlson v. State, 27 Fla. L. Weekly D2162 (Fla. 5th DCA Oct. 4, 2002), Lecorn v. State, 832 So.2d 818 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), and Jones v. State, 27 Fla. L. Weekly D2377 (Fla. 5th DCA Nov. 1, 2002), and we note possible conflict with Nieves v. State, 833 So.2d 190 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), and Green v. State, 832 So.2d 199 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). We also certify conflict with State v. Franklin, 836 So.2d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), review pending, No. SC03-413 (Fla. 2003), which held that chapter 99-188 does not violate the single-subject rule.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.

ALTENBERND, C.J., and NORTHCUTT, J., Concur.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED.


Summaries of

Barthel v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Sep 19, 2003
862 So. 2d 28 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

holding that where an agreed upon minimum-mandatory sentence was illegal, remedy was not automatic resentencing, instead, the state would be given the opportunity to agree to resentencing or to withdraw from the plea agreement and proceed to trial on the original charges

Summary of this case from Gamble v. State

holding where illegal sentence was imposed pursuant to plea bargain, state must be given option of either agreeing to resentencing to legal sentence or proceed to trial on original charges

Summary of this case from Wallen v. State
Case details for

Barthel v. State

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD BARTHEL, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Sep 19, 2003

Citations

862 So. 2d 28 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

Citing Cases

Wallen v. State

We only vacate the sentence for the aggravated assault with a deadly weapon count, rejecting Wallen's claim…

Rodriguez v. State

On remand, the State will have the option of (1) agreeing that Rodriguez shall be resentenced to a legal…