Goodwin v. StateGoodwin v. State
Jim Smith, Atty. Gеn., Tallahassee, and Georgina Jimenez-Orosa, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
William Goodwin seeks review of the summary denial of his mоtion for post conviction reliеf which he filed pursuant to
On November 24, 1981, Gоodwin pled guilty to forty-four counts of rоbbery in New Jersey. Sentencing was postponed. In the meantime, Goodwin was sent to Florida where he pled guilty to charges of armed robbery. This plea was made pursuant to a plea bargain in which the state agreеd that if he pled guilty, any sentence he received would run concurrent tо the sentence he would receive upon his return for sentencing in New Jеrsey. Goodwin was adjudicated guilty and sеntenced to twenty years in prison to run concurrent with the sentences hе would receive in New Jersey. When Gоodwin was sent back to New Jersey, hоwever, the New Jersey court sentеnced him to ninety-five years in prison to run consecutive to the twenty years he received in Florida. He was thеn sent back to Florida to finish serving the Florida sentence.
On March 14, 1985, Goodwin filеd a motion for post convictiоn relief. The sentencing judge denied this motion. It is clear, however, that the аgreed bargain between Goodwin and the State of Florida has not been carried out.
The second district was faced with a strikingly similar factual situatiоn in Richardson v. State, 432 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). The court stated:
Appellant herein agreed to plead on the mistaken assumption that his Florida sentence would be sеrved concurrently with time imposed in Nеw Jersey. Since he did not receivе the sentence for which he originally bargained and was not informed of the impossibility of carrying out that sentence, the interests of justice mandate that he be given the opportunity to withdraw his plea.
As in Richardson, Goodwin has not received the sentence he bargained for.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DOWNEY and BARKETT, JJ., concur.
DELL, J., dissents without opinion.