ANTHONY ARANGO, PETITIONER,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Anthony Arango sought an extension of time to file a motion for mitigation of sentence after entering a plea bargain for second-degree murder. The court denied the extension, concluding the motion would be futile because the plea bargain fixed the sentence at ten years incarceration plus seven years probation, leaving the trial court no discretion to reduce it.
The trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law in denying the extensions of time because the plea bargain specified an exact sentence with no discretion for the trial court, making a motion for mitigation futile. Therefore, the trial court properly exercised its discretion to deny the extension of time.
[1] A trial court may deny a motion for an extension of time to file a motion for sentence mitigation if the underlying motion for mitigation would be futile.
[2] A trial court lacks discretion to reduce a sentence that was specifically agreed upon in a plea bargain.
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“Since the plea bargain contained a specific agreement on the specific sentence that would be imposed on the defendant, namely, ten years incarceration followed by seven years of probation. Since the plea bargain here did not give the trial court any discretion over the length of the sentence, it follows that the trial court would be without the discretion to reduce the agreed sentence.”
Establishes the core holding that when a plea bargain fixes the sentence, the trial court lacks discretion to reduce it, making a mitigation motion futile.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceArango entered a plea bargain pleading guilty to second-degree murder with a firearm in exchange for a life sentence, which was to be mitigated to man…
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 Mitigation Of Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
On Motion for Rehearing
PER CURIAM.
On consideration of the motion for rehearing, clarification or certification filed by defendant-petitioner Anthony Arango, we withdraw our previous opinion and substitute the following opinion.
The defendant entered into a plea bargain whereby he pled guilty to second degree murder with a firearm in exchange for a life sentence. Upon returning from a court-granted furlough, this was to be mitigated to manslaughter with a ten-year sentence followed by a term of probation. According to the parties, the defendant timely returned from his furlough and his sentence was mitigated as agreed.
Thereafter the defendant filed a motion for extension of time in which to file a motion for mitigation of sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c). In his motion he maintained that owing to transportation from one facility to another and lack of access to a law library, he had not been able to complete his motion. Subsequently, he filed a second motion for extension of time. The trial court denied both motions and the defendant appealed. We have treated the appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari.
We conclude that there was no departure from the essential requirements of law in the denial of the extensions of time under the circumstances of this case. That is so because the plea bargain contained a specific agreement on the specific sentence that would be imposed on the defendant, namely, ten years incarceration followed by seven years of probation. Since the plea bargain here did not give the trial court any discretion over the length of the sentence, it follows that the trial court would be without the discretion to reduce the agreed sentence. See State v. Brooks, 890 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 2d DCA Jan.5, 2005). Since the motion for mitigation of sentence would be futile, it follows that the trial court had the latitude to deny the extension of time.
The defendant argues that the trial court ruling was contrary to State v. Boyd, 846 So. 2d 458 (Fla.2003), and Abreu v. State, 660 So. 2d 703 (Fla.1995). We see no conflict. The Abreu case is the relevant one here, and holds that the time for filing a motion for mitigation of sentence can be extended. Under the circumstances of this case, however, there was no departure from the essential requirements of law in the trial court’s denial of the extension of time, as the motion would have been futile in any event.
The defendant also maintains that his sentence exceeds the legal maximum. Our denial of relief is without prejudice to the defendant to file an appropriate motion to correct illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We express no opinion on the merits of any such motion.
Certiorari denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Gutierrez, 10 So. 3d 158 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…with other defendants. See Swett, 772 So. 2d at 52. Moreover, the trial court, pursuant to the plea agreement, did not have discretion over defendant’s sentence and, therefore, should have denied defendant’s motion to mitigate. See Arango v. State, 891 So. 2d 1195, 1196 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (concluding that denial of a motion for extension of time to file a motion to mitigate was proper because the motion to mitigate would have been futile where the plea agreement imposed upon defendant a specific sentence and…
-
State v. LaFAVE, 113 So. 3d 31 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…that circuit courts lack discretion to modify sentences previously imposed pursuant to plea agreements. See State v. Howell, 59 So. 3d 301, 302 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); State v. Gutierrez, 10 So. 3d 158,159 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); see also Arango v. State, 891 So. 2d 1195, 1196 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (on motion for rehearing) (denying certiorari “[s]ince the plea bargain ... did not give the trial court any discretion over the length of the sentence” and, therefore, the court was “without the discretion to reduce the agr…
-
State v. Rojas (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)
Authorities Cited
- State v. Mahlard K. Boyd, 846 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 2003)
- Bruno Abreu v. State, 660 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 1995)
- State v. Brooks, 890 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)