EDWARD C. REDMOND, 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.
The appellate court affirmed a conviction for delivery of cocaine but reversed the sentence, finding that the trial court erred in imposing drug offender probation. The court rejected the argument that the sentence was a product of judicial vindictiveness.
The court held that imposing a harsher sentence after trial does not create a presumption of vindictiveness if the judge did not initiate plea negotiations or threaten a harsher sentence for going to trial. However, the court held that drug offender probation was not authorized for the offense of delivery of cocaine.
[1] A harsher sentence imposed after trial than was offered during pre-trial plea negotiations does not create a presumption of judicial vindictiveness.
[2] A trial judge is not required to grant additional time for plea negotiations when jury selection is imminent.
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“The fact that the trial judge imposed a harsher sentence after trial than had been offered by the State (and made known to the judge) during pre-trial plea negotiations does not create a presumption of vindictiveness.”
Establishes the legal standard for judicial vindictiveness in sentencing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRedmond was convicted of delivery of cocaine and sentenced to five years incarceration followed by ten years of drug offender probation. The sentence …
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 Drug Offender Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
EVANDER, J.
Redmond was sentenced to five years incarceration followed by ten years of drug offender probation after being convicted on a delivery of cocaine charge. We reject Redmond’s claim that his sentence was the product of judicial vindictiveness.
The fact that the trial judge imposed a harsher sentence after trial than had been offered by the State (and made known to the judge) during pre-trial plea negotiations does not create a presumption of vindictiveness. Graff v. State, 843 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).
Here, the trial judge did not initiate or engage in plea negotiations with Redmond, nor did the trial judge imply that a harsher sentence would result if Redmond exercised his right to a jury trial. Rather, the trial judge simply gave Redmond the option to proceed to trial or to plead to the court. The trial judge was not required to give the parties additional time to conclude their plea negotiations, particularly where jury selection was set to begin. We do agree, however, that the trial court erred by placing Redmond on ten years drug offender probation for the offense of the delivery of cocaine.
Section 948.20, Florida Statutes (2005), authorizes drug offender probation for violations of section 893.13(2)(a) or (6)(a), which prohibit the purchase or possession of certain controlled substances.
The trial court was not authorized to impose drug offender probation for delivery of cocaine. State v. Roper, 915 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); see also Anderson v. State, 941 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). On remand, the trial court may resentence Redmond to regular probation. State v. DeMille, 890 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).
The trial court may also impose such special conditions as it deems appropriate; provided that they are reasonably related to the offense and promote the rehabilitation of the defendant or the protection of the public. See Grubbs v. State, 373 So. 2d 905 (Fla.1979); Cassamassima v. State, 657 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).
REVERSED and REMANDED for Re-sentencing.
PLEUS and MONACO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hernan Concepcion v. State, 188 So. 3d 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…psychological trauma. The disparity between the State’s pre-trial plea offer and the sentence imposed by the trial court after trial, standing alone, does not create a presumption of vindictiveness nor ' require resentencing. See Redmond v. State, 970 So. 2d 915, 915 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (holding that the imposition of a harsher sentence after trial than what had been offered by the State pretrial does not create a presumption of vindictiveness); Pagnotti v. State, 821 So. 2d 466, 468 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (fi…
-
Taylor v. State, 227 So. 3d 1252 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…lar probation and may also impose such special conditions as it deems appropriate, provided that they are reasonably related to the offense and promote Appellant’s rehabilitation or are [*1253] for the protection of the public. See Redmond v. State, 970 So. 2d 915, 916 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). Accordingly, Appellant’s conviction is affirmed; that part of his sentence imposing drug offender probation is reversed; and this matter is remanded for resentencing. CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE REVERSED, IN PART; CAUSE…
-
Caineth Joshua ORR v. State, 206 So. 3d 120 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…ion of Orr's sentence imposing drug offender probation for the offense of resisting an officer with violence. On remand, the trial court may resentence Orr to regular probation with special conditions that it deems appropriate. See Redmond v. State, 970 So. 2d 915, 916 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (holding that trial court was not authorized to impose drug offender probation for the offense of delivery of cocaine under the 2005 version of section 948.20 but that on remand, the trial court may impose regular probation…
Authorities Cited
- Grubbs v. State, 373 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 1979)
- Cassamassima v. State, 657 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Graff v. State, 843 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- State v. Roper, 915 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Anderson v. State, 941 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- State v. Demille, 890 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)