JUAN NAVEDO, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Defendant's sentence was vacated because the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to honor a plea agreement when defendant arrived six hours late to surrender, constituting only a de minimis violation.
A deviation of several hours from a surrender agreement constitutes a de minimis violation that does not warrant additional punishment and requires the trial court to honor the original bargained-for sentence.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by refusing to honor a plea agreement providing for sentence mitigation when the defendant's deviation from the agreed surrender time…
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“the deviation of several hours from the agreement amounts to a de minimis violation that did not warrant the additional punishment”
Court's reasoning for vacating the sentence and finding abuse of discretion
Defendant agreed to serve 364 days in county jail and complete the TASC program in exchange for mitigation from a five-year sentence. Defendant oversl…
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 Sentencing Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
SHEVIN, Judge.
Juan Navedo appeals his sentence. We vacate the sentence. The court ordered defendant to serve five years in prison and awarded defendant a brief furlough. The court agreed to mitigate defendant’s sentence to 364 days and completion of the TASC program upon defendant’s timely surrender to begin serving his sentence. Unfortunately, defendant failed to surrender at 9:00 a.m. as agreed. Defendant, having overslept, voluntarily appeared in court at 2:50 p.m., less than six hours late on the proper date.
The court abused its discretion in failing to mitigate defendant’s sentence. As in Amaya v. State, 653 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), we hold that the deviation of several hours from the agreement amounts to a de minimis violation that did not warrant the additional punishment. See Eulo v. State, 786 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
Accordingly, we vacate defendant’s sentence and remand with directions for the trial court to re-sentence defendant forthwith to the bargained-for sentence of 364 days in county jail, completion of the TASC program, and early termination upon successful completion of the program. This opinion is effective immediately and will not be delayed by the filing of a motion for rehearing or other post-decision motion.
Sentence vacated, and cause remanded with directions.
WELLS, J., concurs.
COPE, J.,
specially concurring.
If we were writing on a clean slate, I would affirm the trial court ruling. In Amaya v. State, 653 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), however, this court held that a voluntary surrender at 3:30 p.m. (when the defendant was supposed to have surrendered at 9:00 a.m.) was a de minimis deviation, and that the defendant was entitled to have his sentence mitigated in accordance with the plea bargain. Id. at 1113. Since we are bound by Amaya, we are obligated to provide the same relief in this case.
It was suggested at oral argument that since the failure to surrender at 9:00 a.m. was disobedience of the court’s order, it follows that the trial court in the event of a late surrender may hold the defendant in contempt and impose an additional sane tion. In the present case, that would appear to be a fair resolution of the problem.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Searcy v. State, 971 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…e conditions of receiving the mitigated sentence. This Court and others have reversed sentences imposed in lieu of mitigated sentences only where the defendants’ violations of their furlough terms were de minimis or involuntary. See Navedo v. State, 847 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (finding violation de minimis where the defendant overslept and appeared six hours late); Eulo v. State, 786 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (finding violation de minimis and involuntary where defendant was fifteen minutes late); Am…
-
Kuehl v. Ric L. Bradshaw, 954 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…ntary; also, nothing in Amaya “indicates that Amaya specifically agreed to the exact time of his surrender. Additional punishment was added because Amaya arrived late from furlough.” Eulo, 786 So. 2d at 45 (Warner, J., dissenting). Navedo v. State, 847 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), involved a defendant who was almost six hours late for a scheduled surrender because he overslept. This tardiness led to a four year sentence enhancement. In reversing the lower court, the third district felt that Amaya controlle…
-
Smith v. State, 68 So. 3d 968 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…willful and substantial violation of his probation. Indeed, analogous caselaw supports the view that the fact of appellant’s reporting to jail twenty minutes after the appointed time was little more than a de minimis violation. Cf. Navedo v. State, 847 So. 2d 585, 586 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (holding the defendant’s voluntary appearance in court to begin serving his sentence less than six hours late was a “de minimis” deviation of several hours and, therefore, the trial court abused its discretion in failing to m…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Amaya v. State, 653 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Eulo v. State, 786 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)