JOHN SENKO
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 prosecutor does not violate the Due Process Clause by filing additional, more serious charges after a defendant refuses to plead guilty to the originally-charged offense when the additional charges are justified by evidence the prosecutor possessed when the original charge was filed.
[1] A prosecutor does not violate the Due Process Clause by filing additional charges after a defendant refuses to plead guilty when the additional charges are supported by e…
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 Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not prohibit a prosecutor from carrying out a threat, made during plea negotiations, to bring additional, more serious charges against an accused who refused to plead guilty to the originally-charged offense when it is undisputed that the additional charge is justified by the evidence, the prosecutor was in possession of this evidence when the original charge was filed, and the additional charge was filed solely because of the accused's failure to plead to the original charge”
Bordenkircher v. Hayes standard applied by the court
John Senko appealed a circuit court decision regarding prosecutorial conduct in plea negotiations. The case involved the filing of additional charges …
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 Due Process Clause cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
JOHN SENKO,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D19-2328
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed April 24, 2020
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County, Matthew M. Foxman, Judge.
James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and George D. E. Burden, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Pamela
J.
Koller, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364–65 (1978) (holding that in a pretrial setting, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not prohibit a prosecutor from carrying out a threat, made during plea negotiations, to bring additional, more serious charges against an accused
2 who refused to plead guilty to the originally-charged offense when it is undisputed that the additional charge is justified by the evidence, the prosecutor was in possession of this evidence when the original charge was filed, and the additional charge was filed solely because of the accused’s failure to plead to the original charge); Wallace v. State, 689 So. 2d 1159, 1164 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (“There is no presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness when additional charges are filed, even at the beginning of trial, after a defendant’s refusal to plead guilty to the initially charged crimes.”), quashed on other grounds, 724 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 1998); State v. Phillips, 642 So. 2d 18, 19 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (“For just as a prosecutor may forgo legitimate charges already brought in an effort to save the time and expense of trial, a prosecutor may file additional charges if an initial expectation that a defendant would plead guilty to lesser charges proves unfounded.” (quoting United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368, 378 (1982))).
EVANDER, C.J., and WALLIS and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 (U.S. 1978)
- United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368 (U.S. 1982)
- State v. Phillips, 642 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)