("[F]orfeiture of gain time is a collateral consequence, and . . . neither the circuit court nor counsel was required to forewarn the defendant about that collateral consequence." (citing Ortiz v. State, 227 So.3d 682, 684 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017))); State v. Rodriguez, 990 So.2d 600, 606-07 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) ("[T]here is no requirement that a defendant be given a specifically quantified amount of time that he is expected to serve in prison.").
See Wagner v. State, 177 So.3d 695, 697 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (recognizing that when a defendant enters an open plea, there is no plea agreement between the defendant and the State, and the trial court has the absolute discretion to determine the appropriate sentence); Jacoby v. State, 215 So.3d 168, 171-72 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (recognizing that if a defendant is sentenced to a new prison sentence upon the revocation of the probationary term of a probationary split sentence, the defendant is not entitled to credit for the full amount of the original sentence if he obtained an early release due to gain time—he is entitled to credit for the time he actually served in prison); Brown v. State, 268 So.3d 177, 179 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) ("[F]orfeiture of gain time is a collateral consequence, and ... neither the circuit court nor counsel was required to forewarn the defendant about that collateral consequence." (citing Ortiz v. State, 227 So.3d 682, 684 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017))); State v. Rodriguez, 990 So.2d 600, 606-07 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) ("[T]here is no requirement that a defendant be given a specifically quantified amount of time that he is expected to serve in prison."). LAMBERT, C.J., MAKAR and BOATWRIGHT, JJ., concur.
On the circuit court's first reason for denying the defendant's motion, we recognize that forfeiture of gain time is a collateral consequence, and that neither the circuit court nor counsel was required to forewarn the defendant about that collateral consequence. SeeOrtiz v. State , 227 So.3d 682, 684 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) ("Gain time, good time, provisional credit time, and additional mitigating credits are all collateral consequences of a guilty plea... [N]either the trial court nor counsel is required to forewarn a defendant about every conceivable collateral consequence of a plea to criminal charges.") (citation omitted). However, the failure to advise the defendant of the possible forfeiture of gain time was not the basis of the defendant's motion.
AFFIRMED. SeeOrtiz v. State , 227 So. 3d 682, 684 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) ; Callaway v. State , 202 So. 3d 901, 905 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). PALMER, LAMBERT and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
This was a negotiated plea, which the defendant agreed was in his best interest, and it was offered in part, based, on the mitigating factors presented by the defendant and considered by the State. Thus, as in Ortiz v. State, 227 So.3d 682, ––––, 2017 WL 3495872 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 16, 2017) (finding no prejudice by the failure of defense counsel to request a PSI or to investigate and introduce mitigating evidence where Ortiz was sentenced pursuant to a negotiated plea rather than pursuant to an open plea to the court, and Ortiz was given exactly what he bargained for), and Callaway v. State, 202 So.3d 901, 905 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (finding no "prejudice flowing from the failure to request a presentence investigation where Callaway was sentenced according to a plea agreement he bargained for, rather than as a result of a trial or an open plea to the court and a sentencing hearing where the trial court is asked to consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances when determining what sentence to impose after a finding of guilt"), we find no prejudice.B. Failure to seek correction of the plea agreement