Cassista v. State
57 So. 3d 265
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Cassista appeals a summary denial of Rule 3.850 postconviction relief challenging his PRR sentence under 775.082(9)(a)1., Florida Statutes (2006).
- He pled guilty to burglary of a dwelling and felon in possession of a firearm, with a plea agreement sentencing him to 15 years as a PRR.
- Cassista contends he was not released from a state correctional facility within three years before the instant offense.
- The trial court denied relief, relying on the plea agreement; the record was incomplete regarding exact release timing.
- The court remands for records or an evidentiary hearing to resolve whether Cassista was released within three years, or whether temporary confinement excludes him from PRR eligibility.
- If Cassista does not qualify as a PRR, the State may withdraw from the plea and proceed to trial on original charges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Cassista a PRR within 3 years of release? | Cassista argues his August 2003 release is outside 3-year window. | State contends the record is incomplete; the trial court should determine release timing. | Remand for records or evidentiary hearing to determine release date. |
| Does temporary detention count as release for PRR purposes? | Cassista argues temporary confinement does not constitute release. | State relies on Brinson/Girtman to exclude temporary custody unless ripened into reimprisonment. | Court leaves resolution open pending record; Brinson/Girtman support exclusion where applicable. |
| Should an illegal sentence be corrected despite plea? | Rule 3.850 none; seek relief from improper PRR designation. | Plea agreement cannot validate an illegal sentence. | If not PRR, plea could be withdrawn and case returned to original charges. |
| What happens if record remains incomplete after remand? | Incomplete record prevents PRR determination. | N/A. | Remand to complete record or hold evidentiary hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brinson v. State, 851 So.2d 815 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (relevant to temporary custody not counting as release for PRR purposes)
- Girtman v. State, 617 So.2d 1168 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (temporary detention not release from ‘other commitment’ in related statutes)
- Koile v. State, 934 So.2d 1226 (Fla.2006) (plain meaning rule; no resort to extrinsic intent when language clear)
- McKenzie Check Advance of Fla., LLC v. Betts, 928 So.2d 1204 (Fla.2006) (statutory interpretation favors defendant when language is clear)
- Harich v. State, 484 So.2d 1239 (Fla.1986) (evidentiary hearing required when record does not conclusively refute claims)
- Tompkins v. State, 872 So.2d 230 (Fla.2003) (well-pled allegations deemed true unless rebutted by record)
- Wheeler v. State, 864 So.2d 492 (Fla.5th DCA 2004) (illegal sentence cannot be imposed, even if part of a plea)
- Williams v. State, 650 So.2d 1054 (Fla.1st DCA 1995) (remanding option when plea-based PRR designation may be incorrect)
- Jolly v. State, 392 So.2d 54 (Fla.5th DCA 1981) (procedural guidance related to plea-based determinatons)