Case Name: Willie T. THOMPSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1994-06-03
Citations: 638 So. 2d 116
Docket Number: No. 93-921
Parties: Willie T. THOMPSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: DAUKSCH, COBB, W. SHARP, PETERSON, GRIFFIN, DIAMANTIS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 638
Pages: 116–119

Head Matter:
Willie T. THOMPSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 93-921.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
June 3, 1994.
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Nancy Ryan, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robin Compton Jones, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
ON REHEARING EN BANC
HARRIS, Chief Judge.
We grant the State's motion for rehearing en banc, withdraw our previous opinion and substitute the following.
Willie T. Thompson entered into a negotiated plea with the State in which he acknowledged:
That should I be determined by the Judge to be a Violent Habitual Felony Offender, and should the Judge sentence me as such, I could receive up to a maximum sentence of 50 years imprisonment and a mandatory minimum of 20 years imprisonment and that as to any habitual offender sentence I would not be entitled to receive any basic gain time.
The court accepted the plea on October ⅜ On November 12, the Judge filed a Notice and Order for Separate Proceeding to Determine if Defendant is Habitual Felony Offender or Habitual Violent Felony Offender. The defense moved to strike the notice as untimely. The judge denied the motion, determined that Thompson was an habitual violent felony offender and sentenced him as such. Thompson appeals; we reverse.
We acknowledge that this court in Oglesby v. State, 627 So.2d 685 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993), rev. denied, 637 So.2d 236 (Fla.1994), held that a similar provision in a negotiated plea satisfied the notice requirement of Ashley v. State, 614 So.2d 486 (Fla.1993). On further reflection, we find that such a provision does not satisfy the Ashley standard and recede from Oglesby.
Ashley requires that the defendant must be made aware prior to his plea that either the State intends to seek habitual offender treatment or that the court intends on its own to consider habitual offender treatment at sentencing.- The previously quoted provision in the form negotiated plea does not suggest that the defendant will be considered for habitual offender treatment; it merely informs him generally as to the maximum sentence if he is so considered.
Ashley requires that the defendant be made aware that someone (the State or the Judge) will seek habitual offender treatment prior to his plea so that he can take that into account in deciding whether or not to plead. Merely advising him that the law may possibly be applicable to him (the statute itself gives him that notice) is not the same as advising him that someone will actively seek to apply it against him.
Ashley specifically holds:
In sum, we hold that in order for a defendant to be habitualized following a guilty or nolo plea, the following must take place prior to acceptance of the plea: (1) the defendant must be given written notice of intent to habitualize, and (2) the court must confirm that the defendant is personally aware of the possibility and reasonable consequences of habitualization.
Ashley, 614 So.2d at 490.
In the case at bar, condition two was met; condition one clearly was not.
We recede from Oglesby, reverse the sentence in this case and remand for resen-tencing. The Ashley court remanded for resentencing within the guidelines because that was consistent with Ashley's negotiated plea and Ashley had not requested to withdraw his plea. However, the Ashley court did not consider the possibility that the trial court might believe from a review of Ashley's record (a review only possible after the plea because the PSI was not prepared pre-plea) that it could not in good conscience proceed under the plea. In such instance, we have held that the trial court may sentence as it deems appropriate — consistent with guideline or habitualization restrictions — so long as it gives the defendant an opportunity to withdraw his or her plea and proceed to trial. Giving the defendant the opportunity to withdraw the plea eliminates any prejudice that might otherwise occur because of a sentencing decision made on an after acquired PSI. At resentencing, therefore, the trial court should either sentence within the guideline range or, if it believes that a greater sentence is justified, so advise the defendant and permit him to either accept the greater sentence or withdraw his plea.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DAUKSCH, COBB, W. SHARP, PETERSON, GRIFFIN, DIAMANTIS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
GOSHORN, J., dissents, with opinion.
. Although the court assured itself that Thompson understood the plea, there was no discussion that the court intended to consider habitual offender treatment.
. Bolling v. State, 631 So.2d 310 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).