VAUGHN E. KING, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 1991-04-10
No. 90-2081
DOWNEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.
578 So. 2d 23 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1991) Positive Treatment
Cited by 9 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

Appellant King challenges his sentence as violating the plea agreement he negotiated with the state. The court reverses and remands, holding that when a trial judge rejects a plea agreement based on factors unknown at the time of the plea (such as a Department of Corrections recommendation), the defendant must be given an opportunity to withdraw the plea.


Holding

When a trial judge rejects a plea agreement based on factors unknown at the time of the plea, the defendant must be given the opportunity to withdraw the plea. A trial judge may announce during a plea colloquy that he is not bound by the agreement, but this only means he can reject it if unknown factors make his concurrence impossible—not that he can ignore the agreement's terms.


Headnotes

[1] A trial judge who announces during a plea colloquy that he or she is not bound by a plea agreement may reject the agreement if other factors make concurrence impossible.

[2] If a trial judge rejects the terms of a plea agreement, the defendant must be given the opportunity to withdraw his or her plea.

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

Key Quotes

“A trial judge only accepts or rejects the terms of a plea agreement "[a]fter an agreement on a plea [between the state and [defendant] has been reached."”

Establishes that plea agreement acceptance/rejection occurs at a specific procedural point

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

King agreed with the state to plead guilty in exchange for a six-month county jail sentence. A presentence investigation report recommended a three-ye…

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
GARRETT, Judge.

GARRETT, Judge.

Appellant Vaughn King appeals on the ground that his sentence violated the plea agreement he had with the state. We reverse and remand with directions to the trial judge to give appellant the opportunity to withdraw his plea.

Appellant changed his plea after he and the state agreed that he would be sentenced to six months in the county jail. A presentence investigation was ordered and in the report the Department of Corrections [Department] recommended1 a three year sentence in state prison. At the sentencing hearing, before appellant was sentenced, he learned of the Department’s recommendation and moved to withdraw his plea because the recommendation violated the plea agreement. Appellant’s counsel advised the court that at the time of the plea he had explained to his client that there was “no guarantee” that the trial judge would accept the six month sentence.2 In response, the prosecutor stated that appellant had a right to withdraw his plea if the trial judge would not accept the plea agreement. The trial judge reminded the state and appellant about his comments during the plea colloquy and stated “[f]rom the beginning I never agreed to follow the plea agreement_” He denied the motion and sentenced appellant to eighteen months in state prison.

A trial judge only accepts or rejects the terms of a plea agreement “[a]fter an agreement on a plea [between the state and defendant] has been reached.” Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.171(d). During a plea colloquy, a trial judge may announce that he or she is not bound by the plea agreement. But that announcement does not mean that the trial judge can ignore the terms of the negotiated plea and sentence the defendant as the trial judge sees fit. The announcement means that the trial judge can reject the plea agreement if “other factors (unknown [to him or her] at the time [of his or her acceptance of the plea]) may make his [or her] concurrence impossible.” Id. If the trial judge rejects the terms of the plea agreement the defendant must be given the opportunity to withdraw his or her plea. “Otherwise the voluntariness of any plea entered upon [a plea agreement] may be undercut.” Humphries v. State, 563 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).3

Accordingly, when the Department’s recommendation (not known at the time of the plea) made the trial judge’s concurrence impossible, he should have rejected the plea agreement and permitted appellant to withdraw his plea. Upon remand, the trial judge shall accept or reject the plea agreement. If accepted, the trial judge shall sentence appellant to six months in the county jail. If rejected, appellant shall be given the opportunity to withdraw his plea and proceed to trial or to renegotiate a plea agreement with the state that will be acceptable to the trial judge.

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

DOWNEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur. . Sections 921.231(1), Florida Statutes (1989), provide, in part, that the presentence investigation report prepared by the Department of Corrections "shall include: * * * (k) A recommendation as to disposition by the court. It shall be the duty of the department to make a written determination as to the reasons for its recommendation.”

. We believe appellant understood that his - counsel’s “no guarantee" statement only meant that the trial judge could reject the plea agreement.

. At the sentencing hearing, appellant stated:

THE [APPELLANT]: [W]hen I changed my plea I signed a piece of paper saying that I’d get six months. And now ... they are telling me that I’ll get more time — ”

**

THE [APPELLANT]: Because I signed a piece of paper saying I'm getting six months and that's what I figured I’d get when I came up in front of you.

When the trial judge told appellant that the six months was only a recommendation, appellant responded by stating:

THE [APPELLANT]: Well, see you might have said that but I wasn’t really paying attention because from what they told me, I was just going to get the six months and I signed the paper saying it, you know?

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Bolger v. State, 587 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
    …ling that the two sentences would run consecutively. When a sentencing judge announces that he or she will not be bound by the terms of a plea agreement, the judge must provide the defendant with an opportunity to withdraw his plea. King v. State, 578 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Accordingly, Bolger’s sentence is reversed and the cause is remanded with instructions to allow Bolger an opportunity to withdraw his plea. REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions. GOSHORN, C.J., and HARRIS and PETERSON, JJ.…
  • Demcak v. State, 616 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
    …rt is required to afford the defendant an opportunity to withdraw his plea. Forbert v. State, 437 So. 2d 1079, 1081 (Fla.1983); Perez v. State, 596 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); McCollun v. State, 586 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); King v. State, 578 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Kirkland v. State, 575 So. 2d 1315 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Humphries v. State, 563 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). We agree that the court’s reservation of jurisdiction for continued restitution to the general public, for an unspeci…
  • Rodriguez v. State, 624 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
    …ent not to exceed the five year statutory maximum, not the consecutive sentences imposed by the trial court. Accordingly, we reverse the conviction and remand to provide appellant the opportunity to withdraw his plea in that case. See King v. State, 578 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 4th DCA1991) (if the trial judge rejects the terms of the plea agreement the defendant must be given the opportunity to withdraw his or her plea). In Case No. 91-1599 CF, we remand for correction of the written sentence orders for counts one…

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw