DANNY C. JOHNSON, A/K/A DANNY CLIFFORD JOHNSON, 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 held that when a defendant violates probation imposed pursuant to a plea bargain, the sentencing court may impose a sentence exceeding the terms of the original bargain. The decision establishes that probation violations open a new chapter allowing courts to impose any punishment within the statutory limits for the crime, even if greater than originally bargained for.
A court may sentence a probation violator to a term in excess of the original plea bargain. Once probation is imposed within the terms of the agreement, the bargain is fulfilled, and probation violations open a new chapter allowing the court to impose any punishment within the statutory limits for the crime, regardless of the original bargain.
[1] A court may sentence a defendant to a term in excess of the provisions of an original plea bargain when the defendant violates probation.
[2] Fulfillment of a plea bargain occurs when the order of probation is within the terms of the agreement.
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“So long as the order of probation was within the terms of the agreement, the court has fulfilled the plea bargain. The events which bring about a revocation open a new chapter in which the court ought to be able to mete out any punishment within the limits prescribed for the crime.”
The core holding establishing that probation violations allow sentencing beyond the original bargain's scope
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohnson pleaded guilty to armed robbery and carrying a concealed weapon under a plea bargain guaranteeing concurrent sentences not exceeding five year…
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 Plea Bargain Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Chief Judge.
Where a defendant pleads guilty pursuant to a plea bargain and the court places him on probation, if he violates his probation can the court sentence him to a term in excess of the provisions of the original bargain? We answer the question in the affirmative.
The state charged appellant with armed robbery and carrying a concealed weapon. He pled guilty pursuant to a plea bargain under which he was to receive no more than concurrent sentences of five years on both charges. The court then placed him on probation for concurrent five year terms. A year and a half later the appellant violated his probation. The court revoked probation and sentenced him to concurrent five and ten year terms.
The third district court of appeal has held that since the punishment received by a probation violator is imposed under the original charge, this punishment cannot be in excess of the terms of the bargain upon which the defendant first entered a plea. Payne v. State, 372 So. 2d 152 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); Overman v. State, 368 So. 2d 434 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); Kord v. State, 361 So. 2d 800 (Fla.3d DCA 1978); Segarra v. State, 360 So. 2d 79 (Fla.3d DCA 1978). The fourth district court of appeal held to the contrary in Mulder v. State, 356 So. 2d 870 (Fla.4th DCA 1978).
As between the two views, we opt for the position taken by the fourth district court of appeal. So long as the order of probation was within the terms of the agreement, the court has fulfilled the plea bargain. The events which bring about a revocation open a new chapter in which the court ought to be able to mete out any punishment within the limits prescribed for the crime.
In a different context the supreme court has held that the conduct of a defendant which leads to a probation revocation may be such as to allow the imposition of a greater punishment than would have been permitted at the time of the entry of the order of probation. In Scott v. State, 326 So. 2d 165 (Fla.1976), the court held that a trial judge who previously sentenced a defendant to a term of years less than the maximum allowed by law could, after a new trial in which the defendant is placed on probation, impose for violation of the terms of probation any sentence up to the maximum which could have been originally imposed.
In any event, the facts of the case before us are such that appellant’s argument might even fail under the rationale of Segarra and its progeny. The original bargain contemplated the possibility of imprisonment for a term of up to five years. At the sentencing hearing appellant and his attorney made an impassioned plea that he receive another chance. The court finally decided to put appellant on probation but admonished him that if revocation became necessary it might imprison him for a period of up to twenty years. Having persuaded the court to grant him probation when the bargain did not require it, and the court having warned him of the consequences of a violation, appellant should not now be permitted to complain when he has failed to fulfill the court’s expectations.
AFFIRMED.
HOBSON and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Segarra, 388 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 1980)…terms thereof. Appellant, having violated the terms of his probation, cannot now be heard to argue that the State is bound by the terms of an agreement which resulted in the initial imposition of probation. 356 So. 2d at 871. In Johnson v. State, 378 So. 2d 335 (Fla.2d DCA 1980), defendant pled guilty pursuant to a plea bargain under which he was to receive no more than concurrent sentences of five years on both charges. At the sentencing hearing defendant’s attorney requested that he receive another chanc…1 / 2
-
Bilyou v. State, 404 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 1981)…the trial court is free to impose any punishment within the limits prescribed for the crime. Bilyou v. State at 757. The second and fourth district courts have held likewise. See Mulder v. State, 356 So. 2d 870 (Fla.4th DCA 1978); Johnson v. State, 378 So. 2d 335 (Fla.2d DCA 1980). As the fifth district court noted in its opinion, the Third District Court of Appeal has held contrarily. In Segarra v. State, regarding the same question, the third district held as follows: [T]he trial court erred in imposing…
-
Bilyou v. State, 381 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…erman v. State, 368 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1979); Kord v. State, 361 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1978); Segarra v. State, 360 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1978). The Second and Fourth District Courts of Appeal have held to the contrary. Johnson v. State, 378 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1980); Mulder v. State, 356 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Section 948.06(1), Florida Statutes (1979) provides, in part: If such probation is revoked, the court shall adjudge the probationer guilty of the offense charged and proven…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Segarra v. State, 360 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Payne v. State, 372 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Mulder v. State, 356 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Kord v. State, 361 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Scott v. State, 326 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 1976)
- Overman v. State, 368 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)