RONALD GUYNN, 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.
Ronald Guynn appealed his conviction and sentences following his guilty plea to dealing in stolen property and grand theft, claiming the convictions violated double jeopardy protections. The Florida Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that Guynn waived any double jeopardy challenge by entering into a voluntary plea bargain and accepting its benefits.
Simultaneous convictions for dealing in stolen property and grand theft of the same property violate double jeopardy unless waived by the defendant. Guynn waived any double jeopardy claim by voluntarily entering into a plea bargain and accepting its benefits, and therefore his convictions and sentences do not violate double jeopardy protections.
[1] A defendant waives a double jeopardy claim arising from dual convictions when the convictions result from a negotiated plea agreement.
[2] A plea agreement with a judge, where the judge agrees not to seek habitual offender status in exchange for an open plea, constitutes a negotiated plea bargain.
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“Simultaneous convictions for these two crimes violate the prohibition against double jeopardy unless waived by the defendant.”
Establishes the legal rule that double jeopardy violations can arise from simultaneous convictions unless the defendant waives the claim.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGuynn entered into a plea bargain with the State Attorney's office and pled guilty to one count of dealing in stolen property and one count of grand t…
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 Prison Releasee Reoffender Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant entered into a plea bargain with the State Attorney’s office. Pursuant to that plea bargain, he pled guilty to dealing in stolen property and grand theft of the same property. The defendant appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his 3.850 motion. The core of defendant’s allegations is that his conviction and sentences violate the double jeopardy provisions of the state and federal constitutions. We find the defendant waived any double jeopardy claim that may affect either his convictions or his sentences under article I, section 9, of the Florida Constitution or of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and therefore affirm.
Simultaneous convictions for these two crimes violate the prohibition against double jeopardy unless waived by the defendant. See Kilmartin v. State, 848 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 1st DCA, 2003). The defendant pled guilty to both grand theft and dealing in stolen property after being fully advised by counsel. The trial judge conducted a detailed plea colloquy, and the defendant testified he understood he was pleading guilty to one count of dealing in stolen property and one count of grand theft. The factual basis the State recited identified the property as the same for both offenses. The defendant further testified he considered the plea bargain to be to his advantage.
The negotiated plea agreement placed obligations on both parties. The defendant agreed, in part, to be sentenced as an habitual felony offender to a term of 13 years in prison on the dealing in stolen property charge and a concurrent 10 years on the grand theft charge. The State agreed, in part, not to file a pending armed burglary charge. Had the defendant been convicted of armed burglary, he would have faced a sentence of life in prison as a prison releasee reoffender. The defendant entered into a voluntary plea bargain. He believed this plea to be in his best interest. In exchange for his plea he received less than a maximum sentence and the forbearance of the State in filing additional charges. Having accepted the benefits of the bargain by avoiding a potential life sentence, the defendant cannot, any more than any other contracting party, be relieved of the bur den of his bargain. See Novaton v. State, 634 So. 2d 607 (Fla.1994).
AFFIRMED.
BOOTH, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miller v. State, 988 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…for a challenge on a ground other than' those specified in rule 9.140(b)(2)(A). And even if this were a matter of fundamental error, the appellant waived the right to raise it on appeal when he entered his negotiated plea. See, e.g., Guynn v. State, 861 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)(explaining that Kilmartin is inapplicable in the context of a negotiated plea); Novaton v. State, 634 So. 2d 607 (Fla.1994). I would accordingly affirm the judgments and sentences under review.…
-
Whitaker v. State, 881 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…erally intend to adjudicate together, essentially as a package, all the cases which are pending against the defendant. This intention is generally referred to by the courts as constituting the “benefit .of the bargain”. See generally Guynn v. State, 861 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). When a defendant successfully challenges and is permitted to withdraw a plea of nolo con-tendere or guilty which was entered as a result of a plea bargain, the negotiated plea bargain is “abrogated”. See Williams v. State, 762 S…
-
Small v. State, 249 So. 3d 675 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Novaton v. State, 634 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 1994)
- Kilmartin v. State, 848 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)