STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
MANUEL SUAREZ, 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 appellate court reversed a trial court's sentencing decision where the judge found substantial assistance and mitigated a cocaine defendant's sentence without a required motion by the state. The court held that while the trial court erred in imposing a mitigated sentence without state motion, the defendant was entitled to withdraw his plea due to the state's failure to honor the underlying agreement and confusion regarding the charges.
A mitigated sentence based on substantial assistance may only be imposed after a motion by the state, so the trial court erred in doing so without such a motion. However, because Suarez relied on the state's agreement and the state failed to uphold it, and because there was confusion regarding which charges he pled to, he should be allowed to withdraw his plea and proceed to trial.
[1] A trial court cannot mitigate a defendant's sentence based on a finding of substantial assistance without a motion from the state.
[2] A defendant who provides substantial assistance to the state based on a belief that a plea agreement has been reached should be allowed to withdraw their plea when the st…
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“a mitigated sentence may be given upon a finding of substantial assistance only after a motion has been made by the state”
Establishes the statutory requirement that state must move for sentence reduction; trial court cannot unilaterally impose mitigation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSuarez entered a plea of nolo contendere to possession, delivery, and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine based on an agreement with the assistant state …
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 Withdrawal Of Guilty Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
HALL, Judge.
The state appeals the sentence of the appellee, Manuel Suarez, contending that the trial court erred when it found substantial assistance and mitigated the sentence imposed on Suarez without a motion from the state attorney. We agree.
Suarez entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charges of possession, delivery, and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine with the understanding that a substantial assistance agreement had been worked out with the state. Prior to the sentencing hearing, Suarez had offered to supply the state with certain information regarding his cocon-spirators, and the assistant state attorney had agreed to have the sentence reduced in return for the information. Suarez provided the information, but since the assistant state attorney could not get the approval of his superiors to the agreement, he refused to file a substantial assistance motion allowing the court to mitigate the sentence. At the hearing, defense counsel argued that Suarez had upheld his part of the bargain and was entitled to a mitigated sentence under section 893.135(3), Florida Statutes (1985). The trial court adjudicated Suarez guilty, and over the state’s objection, found that Suarez had provided substantial assistance, and sentenced Suarez to five years’ probation for possession, fifteen years’ probation for delivery of cocaine, and fifteen years’ probation for conspiracy to traffic in cocaine.
Section 893.135(3) provides that the state may move to have a defendant’s sentence reduced or suspended if the defendant provides substantial assistance in the identification, arrest, or conviction of any of his accomplices or coconspirators. The trial court found that Suarez had provided substantial assistance pursuant to an agreement with the state and therefore was entitled to a reduced sentence. We find this to be error since a mitigated sentence may be given upon a finding of substantial assistance only after a motion has been made by the state. State v. Taylor, 411 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). However, since Suarez was led to believe that 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 cocaine involved and that the trial judge acknowledged the confusion surrounding the entry of the plea.
While we agree with the state that the trial court could not find substantial assistance and mitigate Suarez’ sentence, we note that Suarez entered his plea on the basis of the agreement with the state. Because of the state’s failure to honor the agreement and the confusion as to the plea, the trial court must allow Suarez the opportunity to withdraw his plea and proceed to trial.
Reversed and remanded with directions consistent with this opinion.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ruth v. State, 574 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…ch contains a clause under which the prosecutor is the decisionmaker concerning the issue of the defendant’s substantial assistance. . The withdrawal of a plea is the most common remedy when the state breaches a plea agreement. See State v. Suarez, 510 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Offord v. State, 544 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). There are circumstances, however, in which specific performance may be the appropriate remedy. See Tillman v. State, 522 So. 2d 14 (Fla.1988). See also Odom v. State, 310 So. 2…
-
State v. Kem Lowe Agerton, 523 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…nte reduce or suspend a statutory minimum sentence under section 893.135 and may reduce or suspend the defendant’s sentence only after a motion has been made by the state. Madden v. State, 499 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). See also State v. Suarez, 510 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); State v. Cuesta, 490 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); State v. Taylor, 411 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). In Madden, this court held that even where the State had agreed to file a motion to mitigate sentence in return for substant…
-
Barguez v. State, 534 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See State v. Suarez, 510 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Fairweather v. State, 505 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Madden v. State, 499 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Lecoin v. State, 418 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Stell v. State, 366 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); State v. Reasbec…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Taylor, 411 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Henry v. McBRIDE, Jr., 508 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)