JAMES WILLARD, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed a probation violation sentence because the trial judge impermissibly penalized the defendant for exercising his constitutional right to trial rather than pleading guilty.
A judge may not impose a greater sentence on a defendant because the defendant exercises his constitutional right to trial.
[1] A trial judge may not impose a greater sentence on a defendant as punishment for exercising the constitutional right to trial rather than entering a guilty plea.
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Bottom guidelines is for people who agree to plead guilty and admit to what they did. Mr. Willard insisted on having a trial.”
The trial judge's stated reason for denying the bottom-of-guidelines sentence, which the appellate court found constituted impermissible trial penalty.
Willard was charged with violating his probation following a prior aggravated battery conviction. After finding him guilty of the violation, the judge…
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 Constitutional Right To Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, Judge.
Willard was charged with violating his probation after a previous conviction of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. The judge found Willard guilty of the violation and in response to Willard’s attorney’s request for a bottom of the guidelines sentence stated:
Bottom guidelines is for people who agree to plead guilty and admit to what they did. Mr. Willard insisted on having a trial.
It goes almost without saying that a judge may not impose a greater sentence on a defendant because such defendant avails himself of his constitutional right to trial. See Gallucci v. State, 371 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), cert. denied, 383 So. 2d 1194 (Fla.1980). Perhaps the court was thinking about remorse as justifying a lower sentence but requesting a trial does not necessarily equate with a lack of remorse. In any event, Willard deserved the same consideration for bottom of the guidelines sentence as he would have received had he entered a plea. Further, the State admits problems with the guideline scoresheet in this ease and, in remanding for resentencing before a different judge,1 we direct that a new scoresheet be prepared.
REVERSED and REMANDED for re-sentencing.
W. SHARP and ANTOON, JJ., concur. . Willard requests a new sentencing judge relying on Pruitt v. State, 682 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). We agree with the Third District that under circumstances such as these, a different judge should handle the resentencing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Capre v. State, 773 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…in post-trial proceedings pursuant to rule 3.800. See Mancha v. State, 768 So. 2d 1178 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Accordingly, appellant’s appeal is dismissed. APPEAL DISMISSED. THOMPSON, C.J., and COBB, J., concur. . See, e.g., Willard v. State, 717 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) ("It goes almost without saying that a judge may not impose a greater sentence on a defendant because such defendant avails himself of his constitutional right to trial”).…
Authorities Cited
- Gallucci v. State, 371 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- Pruitt v. State, 682 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)