A defendant who knowingly enters a plea agreement concerning both the charges and the sentences waives any double jeopardy objection.
An appellant moves to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that his convictions violate the double jeopardy clause because his plea involved the possession and sale of the same cocaine. The court considers whether a challenge to convictions is cognizable under a rule intended to correct illegal sentences. The court determines that a challenge to convictions is not cognizable under the rule for correcting illegal sentences. Furthermore, the court holds that a defendant who knowingly enters a plea agreement concerning both charges and sentences waives any double jeopardy objection. Therefore, the trial court's denial of the motion is affirmed.
At page 655 Waiver of double jeopardy objection through agreement2 citing casesagreement concerning both the charges and sentences waives any double jeopardy objection. The exception to that rule, being inapplicable to the instant facts,…
- Collins v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., No. 3:18-cv-00164 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 6, 2020).See e.g., Plowman v. State, 586 So. 2d 454, 456 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Henry v. State, 920 So. 2d 1204, 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Salazar v. State, 675 So. 2d 654, 655 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); State v. Spella, 567 So. 2d 1051, 1051 (Fla. 5th DCA 1…
- Coughlin v. State, 932 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).publishedSee, e.g., Plowman v. State, 586 So.2d 454, 456 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Henry v. State, 920 So.2d 1204, 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Salazar v. State, 675 So.2d 654, 655 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); State v. Spella, 567 So.2d 1051, 1051 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990…
At page 654 Double jeopardy challenge to convictions not cognizable in sentence correction motions1 citing caseThe double jeopardy argument Salazar advances in this case is a challenge to his convictions, not sentences, and thus is not cognizable under the rule regarding motions to correct illegal sentences.
- Darius T. Chaney v. State of Florida, 432 So. 3d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 2026).published(The double jeopardy argument Salazar advances in this case is a challenge to his convictions, not sentences, and thus is not cognizable under the rule regarding motions to correct illegal sentences.)
Other citing cases
- Salgado v. State, 684 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).published
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Richard Salazar, in pro. per.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, for appellee.
Before NESBITT, LEVY and GERSTEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
On Motion for Rehearing
The appellant's motion for rehearing is granted. We withdraw our previous opinion dated April 3, 1996 and substitute the following:
We affirm the trial court's denial of Richard Salazar's motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. Defendant contends that the plea upon which his convictions and sentences were based was for possession and sale of the same cocaine, thus violating double jeopardy. The double jeopardy argument Salazar advances in this case is a challenge to his convictions, not sentences, and thus is not cognizable under the rule regarding motions to correct illegal sentences. Wiley v. State, 604 So.2d 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Nevertheless, even if we construe the motion as one seeking post-conviction relief, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, the defendant would still not be entitled to a remedy. The general rule is that a defendant who knowingly enters a plea[*655] agreement concerning both the charges and sentences waives any double jeopardy objection. The exception to that rule, being inapplicable to the instant facts, need not be addressed herein. See Novaton v. State, 634 So.2d 607 (Fla.1994) (finding an exception to general rule when (a) the plea is a general plea as distinguished from a plea bargain; (b) the double jeopardy violation is apparent from the record; and (c) there is nothing in the record to indicate a waiver of the double jeopardy violation).
Accordingly, we affirm the order under review.