TODD ALLEN DAVIS, 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.
Todd Allen Davis appealed his negotiated sentence, arguing that a five-year prison sentence exceeded the plea agreement's promise of sentencing "at the low end of the permitted range." The court affirmed, holding that a sentence within six months of the lowest sentence in the permitted range satisfies the "low end" language.
A sentence within six months of the lowest sentence within a permitted range constitutes sentencing "at the low end of the permitted range" as agreed. The trial court did not err in imposing a five-year sentence because the plea agreement was ambiguous and did not specify an exact term of years.
[1] A sentence imposed by a trial court is considered "at the low end of the permitted range" when it is within six months of the lowest possible sentence within that range.
[2] A trial court is not required to allow a defendant to withdraw their plea when the sentence imposed is within the agreed-upon range, even if the defendant perceives the s…
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“is a sentence within six months of the lowest sentence within a permitted range "at the low end of the permitted range?" We hold that it is.”
The court's direct holding on the central issue: whether the five-year sentence complies with the plea agreement's language.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavis entered a plea agreement stating he would be sentenced "at the low end of [the] permitted range" followed by two years probation. The sentencing…
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 Negotiated Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, Judge.
Todd Allen Davis appeals his negotiated sentence to the charges of grand theft, forgery, and uttering a forgery. He argues that the trial court did not honor the sentencing agreement. We affirm.
Davis entered a plea agreement which stated that he would be sentenced “at the low end of [the] permitted range” followed by two years probation. The sentencing guidelines score sheet used by the trial court showed a permitted range of four and a half to nine years. Davis was sentenced to five years imprisonment followed by two years probation. On appeal, Davis argues that the trial court imposed a sentence exceeding that contained in his plea agreement without first giving him an opportunity to withdraw his plea. More precisely, Davis asks this court to resolve a semantical conundrum: is a sentence within six months of the lowest sentence within a permitted range “at the low end of the permitted range?” We hold that it is.
Davis inaccurately argues that the trial court, by accepting the written plea, agreed to sentence him to a specific sentence: four and a half years. The plea agreement did not state or imply a specific term of years for his sentence. The plea agreement reads in pertinent part:
1. Adjudication
2. Low end of permitted range plus 2 years probation with an early termination when all restitution is paid, (emphasis added)
The trial court followed the plea precisely: Davis was sentenced to the lower end of the permitted range. Davis cites Goins v. State, 672 So. 2d 30 (Fla.1996), to support his agreement. In Goins, the Supreme Court held that if the trial court cannot sentence a defendant according to the plea agreement, the court must give the defendant the right to withdraw the plea. Id. at 32. The difference between Goins and the instant case is the lack of precision in stating the sentence to be imposed. Had Davis agreed to be sentenced at the “lowest” end of the permitted range, to “4$ years,” then Goins would apply. Here, the trial court did not agree to sentence Davis to a specific sentence only to the lower end of the permitted range. Therefore, the trial court considered a five year sentence to be within the terms of the agreement. We will not gainsay the trial court.
Perhaps the lesson to be learned is that negotiations should include a precise plea for a term of years or an objective basis for determining a sentence (lowest end or bottom of the permitted range) will prevent this problem from recurring. Here, the trial judge did not err by imposing a sentence within six months of the lowest sentence that could be imposed in a permitted range.
AFFIRMED.
COBB and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eddie v. Clay, 707 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…was not for a specific point but for a range. Even though the court recognized the defendant’s fleeing from the state to avoid sentence in its judgment of sentence, still the result remained within the mid-range of the guidelines. In Davis v. State, 696 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), this court recognized the difference between an agreement for a specific sentence and an agreement to be sentenced within a general range. In the latter case, the court reserves some discretion. As we said in Davis: “Therefore,…
Authorities Cited
- Kit Goins v. State, 672 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 1996)