CARL MILTON PITTMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Enhancing a negotiated sentence for failure to appear after a stay, when the original judgment did not reflect the condition, violates double jeopardy.
[1] Enhancing a negotiated sentence for failure to comply with a condition subsequent constitutes a double jeopardy violation.
[2] A defendant's willful noncompliance with the conditions of a stay of execution may be the subject of a separate criminal charge.
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 intelligenceDefendant pleaded guilty and received a negotiated sentence, with a stay of execution conditioned on his return. The final judgment did not reflect th…
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 Condition Subsequent cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant entered a negotiated plea to charges of burglary of a dwelling and grand theft, and was sentenced to concurrent seven-and five-year terms of imprisonment. After the sentence was entered defendant requested a fourteen-day stay of execution in order to straighten out personal affairs. The court granted the stay on a condition, which was accepted by the defendant, that the negotiated sentence would be vacated and the maximum twenty-year sentence imposed if the defendant failed to report at the end of the stay period. During the period of the stay the court entered a final judgment of conviction and sentence for the seven-and five-year concurrent sentences pursuant to the negotiated plea. The judgment did not re-fleet the condition that the negotiated sentence could be vacated and the maximum sentence imposed if the defendant failed to appear. The defendant failed to appear as required by the stay agreement. When he was subsequently apprehended, the agreed-to sentence was vacated and the maximum sentence imposed in an informal proceeding where defendant was not represented by counsel.
We agree with appellant that this case is controlled by Scott v. State, 419 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) where we held, on similar facts, that enhancement of a negotiated sentence for failure to perform according to a condition subsequent constituted a double jeopardy violation.1 The policy reasons advanced by the State for affirming the trial court are unpersuasive. There are other means, not constitutionally prohibited, of accomplishing the same end. Further, willful noncompliance with the stay condition could be the subject of a separate criminal charge.
Reversed and remanded with instructions to reinstate the original sentence.
. We receded from Scott in Rodriguez v. State, 441 So. 2d 1129, 1136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (en banc rehearing), rev. denied, 451 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 1984) only to the extent that Scott held that the double jeopardy bar also precluded the exercise of subject matter jurisdiction.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Gregorio Rodriguez v. State, 441 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Scott v. State, 419 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)