HENRY V. MCBRIDE, JR., 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.
A defendant who pled no contest under a plea agreement seeks to withdraw his plea after the prosecutor violated the agreement by delivering an emotional tirade at sentencing rather than remaining restrained as promised. The appellate court agrees the plea agreement was breached and allows withdrawal of the plea.
The defendant is entitled to withdraw his no contest plea because the state attorney breached the plea agreement by engaging in an extended emotional tirade at sentencing, thereby violating the commitment to refrain from 'ranting and raving,' and the defendant was prejudiced because the prosecutor's conduct likely influenced the trial judge to impose the maximum sentence.
[1] A defendant may be permitted to withdraw a no contest plea when the state fails to adhere to a commitment made under the plea agreement.
[2] An agreement by the prosecution not to "rant and rave" at a sentencing hearing reasonably implies a commitment to refrain from engaging in a lengthy, major emotional tira…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“the prosecution has agreed not to engage in a lengthy major emotional tirade against the defendant”
The court's interpretation of what the parties meant by the prosecutor's agreement not to 'rant and rave' at sentencing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcBride was charged with 84 counts of organized fraud involving bilking 81 elderly citizens of substantial sums of money. He entered a no contest 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 Sentencing Considerations cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Judge.
After a denial of a motion for post conviction relief, the defendant argues on appeal that he should have been allowed to withdraw his plea of no contest, because the state attorney failed to adhere to a commitment under the plea agreement. We agree.
The defendant, who allegedly bilked 81 elderly citizens out of substantial sums of money, was faced with 84 counts of organized fraud by obtaining in excess of $50,-000 from more than five persons — not to mention a potential prosecution of his wife and mother. Indeed, part of the relief which the defendant seeks from this court, and which we now grant, will probably turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory.
In essence, the defendant pled no contest as to one count, the state attorney agreeing not to proceed with any other charges. Moreover, while the prosecutor did not promise to stand mute at the sentencing hearing and stated he would insist on the maximum sentence, he did agree not to “rant and rave.”
It is not an easy task to pinpoint what the prosecution intends, and the defense understands, when there is an agreement not to “rant and rave,” but we are comfortable in concluding that it reasonably means that the prosecution has agreed not to engage in a lengthy major emotional tirade against the defendant. However, with an applauding audience of bilked victims in attendance at the sentencing hearing, the prosecutor pulled out all the stops and engaged in an extravagant and lengthy tirade against the defendant which could only be described as a scathing excoriation. It is not that the defendant did not deserve the prosecutor’s remarks. It is simply that, for reasons best known to himself, the prosecutor agreed to refrain from doing what he did, that is, “rant and rave.” Nor can we conclude that the defendant was not prejudiced. At the plea negotiations, everyone, including the prosecutor, assured the defendant that this particular trial judge never gave the maximum and as the assistant state attorney remarked: “Yes he always comes in under.” Yet in the case at bar, after the prosecutor’s tirade, the trial judge did not “come in under” and in fact meted out the maximum 30 years.
In light of the foregoing, we reverse and remand to the trial court to permit the defendant to withdraw his no contest plea.
We find no merit in the defendant's demand for specific performance nor in any of his other arguments on appeal.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HERSEY, C.J., and STONE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Woods v. State, 600 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…as quite specific as to the prosecutor’s options if appellant failed to appear. When the state refused to honor its agreement as to the recommended sentence, the appellant should have been given an opportunity to withdraw the plea. McBride v. State, 508 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Here, appellant’s attorney sought an opportunity to discuss with appellant whether to withdraw the plea, which the trial court denied. The case of Rhodes v. State, 555 So. 2d 1323 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), is nearly identical to this…
-
State v. Suarez, 510 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…an agreement had been reached and had provided assistance on that premise, he should have been able to withdraw his plea of nolo contendere when the assistant state attorney was unable to uphold his part of the plea agreement. See McBride v. State, 508 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). In addition, there was some confusion as to which charges Suarez pled nolo conten-dere. The record reflects that defense counsel stated he thought the trafficking charge had been dropped since there was less than 28 grams of co…