JOSEPH ANTHONY SEVERINO, 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.
Appellant challenged his resentencing on remand, arguing that a 12-year sentence on the escape charge exceeded the negotiated plea bargain limit of 15 years maximum. The court affirmed the sentencing, holding that the plea bargain addressed all charges collectively, and appellant's overall sentence actually improved under the new arrangement.
The court affirmed the sentencing order, holding that the negotiated plea bargain applied to all charges collectively rather than to the escape charge in isolation, and that appellant's overall sentence position actually improved under the remanded sentencing because two charges from the second information were eliminated and the total sentence was reduced to 13 years rather than the 18 years possible under the original plea agreement.
[1] A defendant who enters a negotiated plea agreement cannot later complain that a sentence within the agreed-upon maximums violates due process principles when the sentence…
[2] A defendant's expressed desire to withdraw a guilty plea is a prerequisite for challenging a sentence imposed after resentencing.
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“Appellant cannot have his cake and eat it too. Appellant attempts to treat the escape charge by itself. He overlooks the fact that the negotiated plea related to all of the charges.”
The court's rationale for rejecting appellant's attempt to apply the plea bargain limits to the escape charge in isolation rather than to the entire negotiated plea package.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was charged in two informations: one for escape and another for assault with intent to commit murder, auto theft, and firearm possession. He…
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 Auto Theft cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Judge.
Appellant was charged in one information with the crime of escape and in the second information with the crimes of assault with intent to commit murder in the first degree, auto theft and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Appellant entered a negotiated plea of guilty which provided that the maximum penalty he would receive on the escape charge would be up to fifteen years and not more than one year on each of the charges in the three count information. According to the plea bargain, the sentences would run consecutively. The judge sentenced appellant to one year on the escape charge and five years on each of the other three offenses. In a previous appearance of this case,1 we remanded for resentencing as to all of the offenses within the bounds of the negotiated plea arrangement.
Upon remand, appellant was sentenced to twelve years on the charge of escape and one year for assault with intent to commit murder in the first degree. The sentences were consecutive, but appellant was given credit for the time he had already spent in jail. No sentences were entered on the second and third charges of the three count information. During the course of the hearing on the resentencing, appellant made it abundantly clear that he had no desire to withdraw his guilty pleas.
Appellant now contends that any sentence in excess of one year on the charge of escape violates the principle of North Carolina v. Pearce,2 because no new facts have been demonstrated subsequent to the first sentencing which would warrant an increased sentence. Appellant cannot have his cake and eat it too. Appellant attempts to treat the escape charge by itself. He overlooks the fact that the negotiated plea related to all of the charges. This is why we remanded the case for resentencing on all of the offenses.
As it worked out, appellant actually improved his position because he will no longer be required to serve a sentence on two of the three charges in the second information, and he was only given twelve years out of a possible fifteen for the crime of escape. Under the plea bargain, he could have received up to eighteen years. He was ultimately sentenced to a total of only thirteen years.
The order of sentencing is affirmed.
MANN, C. J., and BOARDMAN, J., concur. . Fla.App.2d, 1973, 286 So. 2d 234.
. 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (U.S. 1969)
- Severino v. State, 286 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)