THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM R. RUSSO, 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.
Florida sought to overturn a trial court's vacation of a defendant's attempted robbery conviction and consecutive 30-year sentence that resulted from a negotiated plea agreement. The appellate court reversed, holding that consecutive sentences imposed pursuant to a plea bargain cannot be vacated under single-transaction sentencing principles when the bargain itself contemplated those specific sentences.
A defendant cannot challenge and have vacated consecutive sentences that were negotiated as part of and contemplated by a plea agreement. The consecutive sentences in this case were an integral part of Russo's bargain and he cannot now complain about their severity after accepting the benefits of the reduced charges.
[1] A defendant who enters into a plea agreement that includes consecutive sentences cannot later seek to vacate those sentences based on a single transaction theory.
[2] A defendant cannot complain about the benefit of a plea bargain that substantially reduced their sentencing exposure.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“in this case, the sentence imposed was the result of a plea agreement which contemplated not only the reduced charges, but also the consecutive sentences.”
Establishes that the consecutive sentences were integral to and contemplated by the plea bargain, distinguishing this case from trial sentencing scenarios.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliam Russo was indicted for first-degree murder and attempted robbery. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Russo pleaded guilty to second-degree murder a…
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 Sentencing Exposure cases and more on FLexlaw
JORGENSON, Judge.
William Russo was charged by indictment with first degree murder and attempted robbery. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the defendant pled guilty to second degree murder and attempted robbery. The trial court sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment on the second degree murder count and a consecutive sentence of thirty years on the attempted robbery count. Judgment and sentence were entered on February 12, 1979. On August 26, 1981, Russo filed a motion to vacate the consecutive thirty-year sentence on the attempted robbery count. The trial court, through a successor judge, granted the motion, vacated the sentence and conviction, and dismissed the attempted robbery charge. At the hearing on the motion to vacate, Russo urged a single transaction theory which, he contended, under State v. Hegstrom, 401 So. 2d 1343 (Fla.1981) and Brown v. State, 206 So. 2d 377 (Fla.1968), required the trial court to vacate the sentence imposed with respect to the attempted robbery. That argument may have had merit following a trial. State v. Thompson, 413 So. 2d 757 (Fla.1982). However, in this case, the sentence imposed was the result of a plea agreement which contemplated not only the reduced charges, but also the consecutive sentences.1 Russo, prior to plea, was faced with a charge of murder in the first degree. If convicted, he would have received a minimum mandatory twenty-five years in the State penitentiary or a possible death sentence. We cannot know what factors convinced Mr. Russo to enter into the plea agreement with the State. At least one of them could have been penalties which could have been imposed, had he been convicted of murder in the first degree, as charged. Russo cannot now be heard to complain that he did not have the benefit of his bargain, thereby substantially reducing his sentencing exposure. The principles that we applied in Oliver v. State, 379 So. 2d 143 (Fla.3d DCA 1980) are equally applicable here. See also State ex rel. Miller v. Swanson, 411 So. 2d 875 (Fla.2d DCA 1981).
For the reasons previously expressed, the order vacating the attempted armed robbery conviction and sentence is reversed and this cause remanded with directions to reinstate Count II of the indictment and the conviction and sentence imposed thereon.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
. The pertinent portion of the plea colloquy is as follows:
THE COURT: Has your attorney explained to you as has been explained here, in open Court, that he, on your behalf, together with representatives of law enforcement agencies have entered into negotiations with regard to your case and have recommended to the Court that as to Count I of the Information, that you be sentenced to life in the State Prison and that 775.087 of the Florida Statutes is in effect, that is that you must serve a mandatory three years prior to being considered for parole; you understand that?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, ma’am.
THE COURT: Do you understand that as to Count II of the Information, the negotiations are, and I will be following the recommendations and sentence you, as to Count II, to 30 years in the State Prison to run consecutive to Count I. Do you understand that?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, ma’am.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 459 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See State v. Russo, 415 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).…
-
Stokes v. State, 472 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See State v. Russo, 415 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).…
-
Helmer Arango v. State, 475 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. State v. Russo, 415 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).…
Previewing 3 of 4 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, 206 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1968)
- State v. Hegstrom, 401 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 1981)
- State v. Rivers, 401 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 1981)
- Oliver v. State, 379 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- State v. Thompson, 413 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 1982)
- State v. Honorable Maynard Swanson, 411 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)