CHANDLER v. The State of Fla., 3D09-778.

• Citation: 41 So.3d 1107
• Decision Date: 18 August 2010
• Docket Number: No. 3D09-778.,3D09-778.
• Parties: Princess CHANDLER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

41 So.3d 1107

Princess CHANDLER, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D09-778.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

August 18, 2010.

41 So.3d 1108

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Amy Weber, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Lunar Claire Alvey, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SHEPHERD, CORTIÑAS, and SALTER, JJ.

SALTER, J.

Princess Chandler appeals from an adjudication of guilt, order revoking community control, and ten-year prison sentence.¹ The issue is whether Ms. Chandler's failure to make required monthly restitution payments during the period of community control, a condition she accepted as part of a plea colloquy during which she both exhibited and acknowledged a complete understanding of the proceedings, was willful and substantial, based on her post-sentencing claims of mental illness. Ms. Chandler also asserts that the ten-year sentence "demonstrated judicial vindictiveness and violated Ms. Chandler's due process rights." We affirm.

The Underlying Case and Plea Agreement

Ms. Chandler pled guilty in 2007 to charges of second degree grand theft and contracting without a license. The maximum sentence for these offenses according to the scoresheet was sixteen years, state prison. Ms. Chandler was ordered to repay the elderly victim $85,883.19 in restitution at a rate of $500 per month. Because she had no history of prior convictions and the victim supported the primacy of restitution (the theft was essentially the victim's life savings), Ms. Chandler was sentenced to two years of community control followed by ten years of reporting probation. During the plea colloquy, Ms. Chandler acknowledged under oath that she understood the terms of her sentence (including the restitution requirement), that she had never been treated for mental illness, and that she was not "under the influence of any drugs, alcohol, medication, or anything that would interfere with [her] understanding." Her trial attorney represented to the court, with Ms. Chandler present, that Ms. Chandler would immediately sign over to the victim half her pension of $1000 per month (hence the $500 monthly minimum restitution payment), that Ms. Chandler anticipated proceeds from the sale of a property she owned, and that Ms. Chandler anticipated profits from the sale of herbal supplements and from wellness seminars that were "not a fairytale."²

Nonpayment and the Competency Evaluations

Ms. Chandler did not make a single restitution payment. The community control officer dutifully reported this, filed an affidavit of violation of community control,

41 So.3d 1109

and further informed the trial court that Ms. Chandler seemed to be mentally ill. The court appointed two mental health professionals to evaluate Ms. Chandler. In separate reports in July 2008, a clinical psychologist concluded that Ms. Chandler was "incompetent to proceed," and an M.D. psychiatrist reached the same conclusion. Both professionals recommended hospitalization in a forensic facility and further observation, but both also noted the possibility of manipulative behaviors by Ms. Chandler to affect the evaluations.

In September 2008, further psychiatric evaluations were conducted. The same two professionals reported independently...