LEE EDWARD GREEN, 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.
Lee Edward Green appeals his sentences arguing they exceeded the presumptive range under Florida's sentencing guidelines. The court affirmed, holding that Green's negotiated plea agreement constituted clear and sufficient reason to depart from the guidelines.
The court held that a negotiated plea agreement constitutes clear and sufficient reason to depart from the sentencing guidelines, and therefore the trial court did not err in imposing the negotiated sentence of twelve years even though the scoresheet recommended 7-9 years.
[1] A negotiated plea agreement can justify a trial court's departure from sentencing guidelines.
[2] A defendant who elects to be sentenced under sentencing guidelines pursuant to a negotiated plea cannot later argue that the sentence imposed exceeded the recommended gui…
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“We hold that the negotiated plea in this case was a clear and sufficient reason for departure from the guidelines.”
Establishes the legal principle that plea negotiations justify departure from sentencing guidelines.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn March 30, 1983, Green was charged with kidnapping, aggravated battery, and armed robbery. On October 11, 1983, the day of trial, Green entered plea…
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 Departure From Guidelines cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Judge.
Lee Edward Green appeals his sentences, which are outside the presumptive sentence recommended by the new sentencing guidelines. We have jurisdiction pursuant to section 924.06(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1988).
On March 30, 1983, the state filed an information charging Green with kidnapping, aggravated battery, and armed robbery. On April 8 defendant was notified that he would be treated as a subsequent felony offender under section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1983). After pleading not guilty to all the offenses, defendant subsequently entered pleas of no contest to the three charges on October 11, the day of the trial, and affirmatively elected to be sentenced under the new sentencing guidelines. In this regard his attorney stated:
Yes, Your Honor. We are here for a trial this morning and pursuant to plea negotiations, which the State and the Court were present, we have elected to withdraw a previously entered plea of not guilty to the original Information and enter a plea of no contest at this time.
... We received the Sentencing Guidelines and under the Guidelines as they applied to the original Information, this would be a category three sentencing procedure. And if the Court is going to impose it I understand it is included to [the] habitual offender aspect of these new Guidelines and Mr. Green’s sentence would fall between the nine to twelve years range. And we would be — elected to be sentenced under that.
He is aware that had he not elected to be sentenced under the Guidelines he would be exposed to the old sentencing procedures and by my calculations, and I think probably as well, he would be exposed to life plus sixty years, and the Court v/ould have the option at a subsequent time to retain jurisdiction over that time period or perhaps one half of that sentence.
So, as far as these areas that I have mentioned being considered, we have elected to be sentenced under the new Guidelines.
The court then adjudged defendant guilty and sentenced him to three concurrent twelve-year terms of imprisonment.
Green now argues on appeal that he was not sentenced in conformity with the guidelines, because the scoresheet submitted by his attorney reflected a recommended range of only seven to nine years imprisonment. We reject this argument.
Defendant elected to be sentenced under the guidelines pursuant to a negotiated plea. Realizing that he could have been imprisoned for life, he elected instead to plead no contest and receive a sentence of no more than twelve years. In light of these circumstances, the trial judge was justified in honoring the plea bargain and thereby deviating from the guidelines. Defendant is therefore in no position to argue now that his sentence exceeded the recommended guidelines range.
We hold that the negotiated plea in this case was a clear and sufficient reason for departure from the guidelines. Bell v. State, 453 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Key v. State, 452 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). Accordingly, we affirm defendant’s sentences.
GRIMES, A.C.J., and OTT, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mischler v. State, 458 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…insufficient for departure Harms v. State, 454 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Agreement as to sentence sufficient for departure Key v. State, 452 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Bell v. State, 453 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Green v. State, 460 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Harrington v. State, 455 So. 2d 1317 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Judicial discretion not usurped by guidelines Manning v. State, 452 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); . Weems v. State, 451 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Addison v. Sta…
-
Quarterman v. State, 506 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…bargain sentences have consistently been recognized as a valid reason for departure from a recommended sentence even if the court does not state other valid reasons for departure. Houston v. State, 502 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Green v. State, 460 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Bell v. State, 453 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Key v. State, 452 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 5th DCA), pet. for rev. denied, 459 So. 2d 1041 (Fla.1984). We have not, in the past, gone behind legitimate plea bargains to determine whethe…
-
Davis v. State, 528 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…section 39.111(6)(d), Fla.Stat. (1985). Because the adjudication was entered pursuant to a plea agreement, however, we find the need for such written reasons has been obviated. See Johnson v. State, 458 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Green v. State, 460 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). See also State v. Rhoden, 448 So. 2d 1013 (Fla.1984). We, therefore, affirm the convictions, but remand for resentencing within the statutory maximum sentences. Remand for resentencing. SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and PARKER, J., c…
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
- Bell v. State, 453 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- KEY v. State, 452 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)