From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thomas v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Jan 18, 1989
537 So. 2d 193 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

Opinion

No. 87-2750.

January 18, 1989.

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County; James T. Carlisle, Judge.

Peter L. Munro, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Steven T. Scott and Mark Dunn, Asst. Attys. Gen., Miami, for appellee.


AFFIRMED.

HERSEY, C.J., and GUNTHER, J., concur.

ANSTEAD, J., dissents with opinion.


I would reverse. It is undisputed on this record that the appellant was incorrectly advised as to the sentence he would receive under the sentencing guidelines before he decided to plead guilty and waive the guidelines. The mistake was also substantial: the guidelines calculation by the probation department erroneously attributed a number of felony convictions to appellant and a guidelines range of nine to twelve years, whereas a correct calculation would have demonstrated a four-year maximum sentence under the guidelines. Florida law requires a defendant to be correctly informed of the potential penalties he faces before his plea of guilty may be accepted. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.172(c)(i). No matter how clear the good faith of the trial judge in imposing the ten-year non-guidelines sentence, confidence in that sentence is further undermined by the exposure to the trial court of the erroneous report of appellant's prior record, a factor always of great significance in sentencing.


Summaries of

Thomas v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Jan 18, 1989
537 So. 2d 193 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)
Case details for

Thomas v. State

Case Details

Full title:CARRINGTON THOMAS, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Jan 18, 1989

Citations

537 So. 2d 193 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)