From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dudek v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Apr 20, 2001
783 So. 2d 331 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

Opinion

No. 5D00-2295.

Opinion filed April 20, 2001.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Anthony H. Johnson, Judge.

Affirmed.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Marvin F. Clegg, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Lori N. Hagan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.


Dudek entered a plea in several cases in which the parties were working with the 1995 guidelines and apparently agreed to a sentence in the bottom portion of the guidelines. He was sentenced to 85 months in each case to run concurrently with each other and this met that condition of the plea. Dudek then received Heggs relief and the matter was remanded for resentencing. The court determined that in four of the cases Dudek was entitled to no relief because he did not meet the conditions of Heggs that his original sentence would have been a departure from the 1994 guidelines. The trial court merely reinstated his original sentences in these cases and we affirm.

As to the remaining case, the court reduced the sentence from 85 months to 53.75 months, the high end of the 1994 guidelines. Dudek urges that he is entitled to either be sentenced to the low end of the 1994 guidelines or be permitted to withdraw his plea. We disagree. He and the State originally agreed to a sentence at the low end of the 1995 guidelines. There was no question raised at that time as to the validity of those guidelines. It was thus contemplated at the time of his plea that he would be sentenced to 85 months in prison. He was and continues to be. It is the invalidity of the 1995 guidelines, and not his plea agreement, that required the judge to reduce one of his sentences. Reducing his sentence to conform to the 1994 guidelines is all that Dudek is entitled to at his Heggs resentencing.

We reject Dudek's additional argument that the court erred when it did not require that the new sentencing be conducted by the judge who handled the original sentencing. Four years had passed and the original judge was no longer in the criminal division. No error occurred by having a newly assigned judge handle the matter.

COBB and PALMER, JJ., Concur.


Summaries of

Dudek v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Apr 20, 2001
783 So. 2d 331 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)
Case details for

Dudek v. State

Case Details

Full title:MASON DUDEK, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Apr 20, 2001

Citations

783 So. 2d 331 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

Citing Cases

Usina v. State

AFFIRMED. See Dudek v. State, 783 So.2d 331 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). PLEUS, C.J., SAWAYA and MONACO, JJ.,…

State v. Whitehead

We reverse because the sentence defendant received initially would not have been a departure under the 1994…