NATHANIEL NESMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court reversed a conviction where the trial judge accepted a guilty plea conditioned on a negotiated sentence, but then imposed a harsher sentence after the defendant failed to comply with conditions the judge unilaterally imposed without the defendant's agreement. The court held that when a judge cannot honor the terms of a plea bargain, the defendant must be given an opportunity to withdraw the plea.
The trial court must offer the defendant an opportunity to withdraw the plea when it cannot honor the agreed terms. Because the conditions imposed by the court after accepting the plea were not part of the plea bargain itself, the court was not at liberty to impose a harsher sentence without first offering Nesmith the right to withdraw his plea.
[1] When a trial judge determines that he can no longer honor the terms of a plea bargain, he is required to give the defendant an opportunity to withdraw his plea.
[2] A trial judge who initiates and participates in plea negotiations must offer the defendant an opportunity to withdraw his plea if the judge cannot honor the bargain.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“when a trial judge determines that he can no longer honor the terms of a plea bargain, he is required to give the defendant an opportunity to withdraw his plea”
States the controlling legal principle that governs when plea withdrawal must be allowed
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNesmith was charged with two counts of burglary. At arraignment, the judge announced an initial sentencing offer of "year or less followed by probatio…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Withheld Adjudication cases and more on FLexlaw
BOARDMAN, Judge.
We are once again faced with the question of whether the trial court should have allowed appellant an opportunity to withdraw a negotiated plea of guilty before sentencing where the court had determined it could not honor the terms of the plea bargain. We reverse.
Appellant and another individual were charged in separate informations with two counts of burglary. On June 27, 1978, appellant was brought before the court for arraignment, and the judge immediately announced, “Year or less followed by probation, PSI.”1 The case was temporarily passed in order to give appellant an opportunity to discuss the offer with his attorney. Defense counsel then informed the court that pursuant to plea negotiations, appellant would change his plea of not guilty to guilty. After determining the voluntariness of the plea, the trial judge accepted the plea, stating:
Okay. I will find a sufficient factual basis for the acceptance of the plea. I will withhold adjudication, refer the matter for presentence investigation. Set sentencing for August 24. I will allow the defendant to remain free on the same bond pending completion of the presen-tence investigation.
The judge then added:
If he commits any crimes from this date forward or doesn’t show on August 24 or doesn’t go to the probation office today or tomorrow the plea negotiations are off and he’s subject to the full penalty that can be imposed by the law on these two offenses.
Neither appellant nor his counsel was asked whether these conditions were acceptable, and neither expressly agreed to them.
Appellant failed to comply with the conditions imposed by the trial judge at the time of acceptance of the guilty plea, and it was not until October 10, 1978, that appellant appeared before the court for sentencing. At this hearing, defense counsel stated that unless the court still intended to impose the sentence contemplated in the plea bargain, appellant wished to withdraw his guilty plea and have the case set for trial. The trial judge denied the request and imposed two five-year prison sentences to be served concurrently.
The courts of this state have held in several cases that when a trial judge determines that he can no longer honor the terms of a plea bargain, he is required to give the defendant an opportunity to withdraw his plea. Brown v. State, 245 So. 2d 41 (Fla.1971); Pringle v. State, 341 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Moore v. State, 339 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Kurlin v. State, 302 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Enos v. State, 272 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 277 So. 2d 286 (Fla.1973). See also Annot., 66 A.L.R.2d 902 (1975) and Standard 2.1, Pleas of Guilty, ABA Standards of Criminal Justice. This is particularly the case where, as here, the trial judge initiates and participates in the negotiations, Barker v. State, 259 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972), and where, as here, conditions are added by the trial judge following the plea colloquy.
The state argues, however, that when the trial judge expressly conditions his acceptance and reserves the right to impose the maximum penalty if the defendant fails to abide by those conditions, he need not offer the defendant an opportunity to withdraw his plea. We cannot agree under the facts of this case. Had the conditions imposed by the court following the acceptance of the plea been part of the plea bargain, the court could have properly imposed the five-year sentences. Because they were not, the court was not at liberty to change the sentences contemplated by the bargain without first offering appellant the right to withdraw his plea.
Accordingly, the judgment and sentences are reversed and the cause remanded with directions that appellant be permitted to withdraw his plea and enter a plea of not guilty.
GRIMES, C. J., and SCHEB, J., concur. . The transcript of the subsequent hearing reveals that appellant had no prior record, had confessed, and had apparently expressed a willingness to testify against his codefendant.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Rayfield Moore v. State, 489 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…ng. A different attorney represented him at sentencing. Appellant did not elect to be sentenced under the guidelines, and the court imposed the maximum sentence authorized by statute. This court reviewed a similar plea colloquy in Nesmith v. State, 374 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), in which the trial judge added conditions after accepting a plea bargain. One of the new conditions was that the defendant would appear for sentencing on a particular date. Neither the defendant nor his attorney consented to the…
-
LaBAISSIERE v. State, 429 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)…o by the defendant at the time he enters his plea and when the defendant [*97] then fails to abide by those conditions, the trial judge may refuse to honor the plea bargain and yet deny the defendant the right to withdraw his plea. Nesmith v. State, 374 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). However, no such conditions were imposed on appellant here. Consequently, the trial court was required to allow appellant to withdraw his plea when the court concluded that it could not in good conscience honor the terms of appel…
-
Fambro v. State, 581 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…rmal acceptance of the plea, are not part of the plea agreement. See Pumphrey v. State, 502 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Moore v. State, 489 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); LaBaissiere v. State, 429 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Nesmith v. State, 374 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). The above cited cases all involved additional conditions added after formal acceptance, but imposed unilaterally by the trial court without the acceptance by or the acquiescence of either the defendant or defense counsel. Here, a…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 245 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 1971)
- Barker v. State, 259 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)
- Schubert v. State, 302 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Kurlin v. State, 302 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Enos v. State, 272 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Moore v. State, 339 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Pringle v. State, 341 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Guest v. James Preston & the Indus. Relations Comm'n, 277 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 1973)
- State v. Enos, 277 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 1973)