WILLIAM SOTO, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 1987-08-27
No. 86-2050
UPCHURCH, C.J., and COWART, J., concur.
515 So. 2d 249 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1987) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Synopsis

William Soto appeals the denial of his motion to withdraw a guilty plea to cocaine trafficking, where he had agreed to render substantial assistance under Florida's drug trafficking statute. The appellate court reversed, finding the state failed to provide Soto a reasonable opportunity to comply with statutory requirements for substantial assistance before denying his plea withdrawal motion.


Holding

Soto's motion to withdraw his guilty plea should have been granted. The state failed to demonstrate any effort to solicit assistance from Soto regarding the identification, arrest, or conviction of accomplices, accessories, coconspirators, or principals involved in his charged crime as required by statute, and the record is completely void of any showing that Soto was given a reasonable opportunity to comply with the statutory requirements.


Headnotes

[1] A defendant may withdraw a guilty plea if the state fails to demonstrate efforts to solicit assistance from the defendant regarding accomplices or coconspirators in the c…

[2] Statutory mitigation of a mandatory minimum sentence for drug trafficking requires the state to represent that the defendant provided substantial assistance in the appreh…

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

Key Quotes

“Section 893.135(3) requires that before a court may mitigate the mandatory minimum sentence, the state must represent that the defendant has rendered substantial assistance in the apprehension of others involved in the very crime for which he is charged.”

Establishes the statutory requirement that substantial assistance must relate to the crime charged, not merely other matters

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Soto entered into a plea bargain agreement to plead guilty to trafficking in over 400 grams of cocaine in exchange for rendering substantial assistanc…

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.


Opinion of the Court
GREEN, O.L., Jr., Associate Judge.

GREEN, O.L., Jr., Associate Judge.

William Soto appeals from the trial court’s order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea to the charge of trafficking in over 400 grams of cocaine. We reverse.

The state and Soto engaged in a plea bargain whereby Soto agreed to render substantial assistance as provided for in section 893.135(3), Florida Statutes (1985).1 A general discussion which ensued during the course of the plea proceeding reflects that Soto’s commitment encompassed the instant case and other criminal investigations to be conducted by a named law enforcement officer. Soto later moved to withdraw his plea on the basis that the state had acted in bad faith. The evidence was conflicting with respect to whether Soto was sufficiently aggressive in his efforts to render assistance; however, proof concerning efforts made by the state and Soto to satisfy the requirements specified in section 893.-135(3), Florida Statutes, was patently absent.

Section 893.135(3) requires that before a court may mitigate the mandatory minimum sentence, the state must represent that the defendant has rendered substantial assistance in the apprehension of others involved in the very crime for which he is charged. Campbell v. State, 453 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). While this court recognizes that a defendant convicted of a violation of section 893.135 may benefit via a general reduction of sentence for assistance relating to matters outside of the particular drug charge against him, this reduction can only occur after the requirements of section 893.135(3) are met.

The state in the instant case has not shown any effort to solicit assistance from Soto with respect to the “identification, arrest, or conviction of any of his accomplices, accessories, coconspirators, or principals” involved in his charged crime as required by the statute. Noon v. State, 480 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Campbell. The state contends that Soto’s failure to provide any assistance encompasses a declination on his part to render the type of assistance specified in section 893.135(3). However, the record before us is completely void of any showing that Soto was given any reasonable opportunity to comply with the statute. Accordingly, Soto’s motion for leave to withdraw his plea should have been granted. The judgment of conviction and sentence are reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to vacate the plea and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

UPCHURCH, C.J., and COWART, J., concur. . Section 893.135(3), Florida Statutes (1985), provides:

The state attorney may move the sentencing court to reduce or suspend the sentence of any person who is convicted of a violation of this section and who provides substantial assistance in the identification, arrest, or conviction of any of his accomplices, accessories, coconspirators, or principals. The arresting agency shall be given an opportunity to be heard in aggravation or mitigation in reference to any such motion. Upon good cause shown, the motion may be filed and heard in camera. The judge hearing the motion may reduce or suspend the sentence if he finds that the defendant rendered such substantial assistance.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Harper v. State, 152 So. 3d 735 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
    …nly 16 or 17 days. See Arzola v. State, 994 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); Timothee v. State, 721 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Pate v. State, 547 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Elias v. State, 531 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Soto v. State, 515 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). No direct evidence contradicted appellant’s claim that he did not understand that his efforts at substantial assistance were subject to such a short time frame. The plea conference was abbreviated and perfunctory. The October 26…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw