CARLISLE BRELAND, 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.
A Florida appellate court vacated a defendant's sentences where the trial court found him in breach of a plea agreement for failing to appear at sentencing, without conducting an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the absences were willful. The court held that non-willful failure to appear does not violate a plea agreement condition.
The court held that a non-willful failure to appear for sentencing does not constitute a violation of a plea agreement condition. The trial court erred by finding substantial noncompliance without record evidence of willfulness and without conducting an evidentiary hearing on the matter.
[1] A non-willful failure to appear for sentencing does not vitiate a plea agreement that makes timely appearance a condition, and does not permit the trial court to impose a…
[2] A trial court's finding of noncompliance with a plea agreement lacks record support when there is insufficient evidence that the defendant acted willfully in failing to a…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“[W]here timely appearance for sentencing is made a condition of a plea agreement, a non-willful failure to appear will not vitiate the agreement and permit the trial court to impose some greater sentence.”
Establishes the legal standard that only willful failure to appear violates a plea agreement condition.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBreland negotiated a plea agreement providing for up to 15 years imprisonment if he appeared for all required court dates, but up to 30 years (includi…
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 Plea Agreement Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
ALLEN, J.
The appellant in this direct criminal appeal challenges the sentences imposed fol lowing his pleas of guilty to various offenses. He argues that the trial court erred by finding that he failed to comply with a specific condition of his negotiated plea agreement. We agree, vacate the appellant’s sentences (which are greater than those which could have been imposed under the plea agreement had there been no finding of noncompliance), and remand this case to the trial court.
The appellant’s negotiated plea agreement provided that he would enter a plea of guilty and would receive a sentence of up to fifteen years in prison if he appeared for all required court dates, but that he could receive any lawful sentence up to thirty years in prison, including a fifteen-year mandatory minimum term, if he did not.
The trial court accepted the plea and passed the case for sentencing. The appellant appeared at neither his initial sentencing nor at a number of subsequently scheduled hearings. When he finally did appear, the prosecutor contended that he was in violation of his plea agreement and recommended a prison sentence of twenty years, including the fifteen-year mandatory minimum term. The appellant countered that his absences were not willful and thus did not constitute a violation of the agreement. Without conducting an evidentiary hearing on the matter, the trial court imposed the sentence recommended by the prosecutor. “[W]here timely appearance for sentencing is made a condition of a plea agreement, a non-willful failure to appear will not vitiate the agreement and permit the trial court to impose some greater sentence.” Johnson v. State, 501 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); accord Robinson v. State, 946 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).
There is insufficient record evidence in this case that the appellant acted willfully when he failed to appear for sentencing. Had the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the matter, perhaps sufficient evidence of willfulness would have been revealed. As it stands now, however, the trial court’s finding that the appellant failed to substantially comply with the terms of his negotiated plea agreement lacks record support.
The appellant’s sentences are accordingly vacated and this case is remanded.
KAHN and DAVIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carlile Breland v. State, 58 So. 3d 326 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…, 2005, pursuant to a negotiated plea, Appellant was convicted and sentenced on several drug-related offenses. On direct appeal, this court vacated his sentences and remanded for re-sentencing in accordance with the plea agreement. Breland v. State, 951 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Appellant’s new sentences were affirmed without opinion, Breland v. State, 995 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (table), and the mandate issued on December 12, 2008. On September 8, 2009, Appellant filed his motion for postconvi…
-
Garcia v. State, 10 So. 3d 687 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…to appear will not vitiate the agreement and permit the trial court to impose some greater sentence.’” Robinson v. State, 946 So. 2d 565, 567 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (quoting Johnson v. State, 501 So. 2d 158, 160-61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)); Breland v. State, 951 So. 2d 74, 75 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Lee v. State, 471 So. 2d 195, 195 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Therefore, if Mr. Garcia’s failure to appear is found to be non-willful, he would be entitled to the bargained-for mitigation of his sentence. See Johnson, 501 So. 2d at…
-
Elieser Roque v. State, 987 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…not vitiate the agreement and permit the trial court to impose [*190] some greater sentence.” Johnson v. State, 501 So. 2d 158, 160-61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); accord Orange v. State, 983 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (following Johnson); Breland v. State, 951 So. 2d 74, 75 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (same); Robinson v. State, 946 So. 2d 565, 566 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (same). While the trial court was not obligated to grant a one-week continuance, it should have granted at least a brief continuance or recess so that trial co…
Authorities Cited
- Johnson v. State, 501 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Ceasar Robinson v. State, 946 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)