Clark v. State
| Decision Date | 22 March 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-2190,94-2190 |
| Citation | 651 So.2d 1309 |
| Parties | 20 Fla. L. Weekly D727 Fred CLARK, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Manuel Alvarez, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Elliot B. Kula, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BASKIN and LEVY, JJ.
The defendant appeals from an order denying his 3.850 motion for relief from the conviction and sentence imposed after he pled guilty to second degree murder. We affirm.
Clark was charged with first degree murder with a firearm. At trial, the circuit judge presented the defendant with a number of plea options; they were:
A) Defendant could take a polygraph examination regarding his involvement in the homicide at issue. If he passed the test, the indictment would be dismissed and, if he failed the test, he would stand trial on the indictment and the results of the test would be admissible against him.
B) Defendant could plead guilty to the charges and, if he passed the test, then the plea would be vacated and the indictment dismissed. If he failed the test, then the court would reduce the charge to second degree murder and sentence Defendant to 40 years in prison, with a three-year minimum mandatory for the use of a firearm.
C) Defendant could plead guilty to second degree murder and receive a sentence of 15 years with a three-year minimum mandatory for the use of a firearm.
D) Defendant could exercise his right to proceed to a jury trial on the charges in the indictment.
(Ex. B.; T. 2-11).
While the state objected to all three options, after consulting with counsel, the defendant eventually chose "Option B." In accordance with it, he pled guilty, took the polygraph, and failed it. The state then fulfilled the terms of the agreement by reducing the charge to second degree murder, and Clark was duly sentenced, as promised, to forty years with a three-year minimum mandatory. As the defendant was informed below and now urges, it is true that the plea offer--made in accordance with his usual practice by the particular circuit judge in question--was unauthorized and, because the state was not bound to dismiss if Clark passed the polygraph, was then unenforceable for lack of mutuality of obligation. See State v. Serra, 529 So.2d 1262 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); State v. Perez, 524 So.2d 482 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Nevertheless, after Clark accepted the offer, the state and the court--although they were not legally bound to do so--in fact fulfilled their part of the bargain by reducing the capital offense of first degree murder to second degree and granting the defendant the sentence previously proffered. In these circumstances, applying the contract principles which have regularly been applied to plea agreements such as this, see Madrigal v. State, 545 So.2d 392 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), the pertinent rule is that
[a]lthough a contract is lacking in mutuality at its inception, such defect may be cured by the subsequent conduct of the parties. Want of mutuality is no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Frazier
...taken this appeal. We affirm. Applying the rules of contract law applicable to plea agreements, like all others, see Clark v. State, 651 So.2d 1309 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), review denied, 660 So.2d 712 (Fla.1995); Novaton v. State, 610 So.2d 726 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), approved, 634 So.2d 607 (Fla.1......
-
Flagship Resort Dev. V. Interval Intern.
...Contracts § 100(3), at 799-800 (1963)); see also Ponce Dev. Co. v. Espino, 449 So.2d 317, 319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Clark v. State, 651 So.2d 1309, 1310 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). Flagship relies on Espino for the proposition that only full and complete performance will cure a lack of mutuality of o......
-
Murry v. Zynyx Marketing Communications Inc., 3D98-2682.
...So.2d 315 (Fla. 1956); Sugar Cane Growers Coop. of Fla., Inc. v. Pinnock, 735 So.2d 530 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). See also Clark v. State, 651 So.2d 1309 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Madrigal v. State, 545 So.2d 392 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Accordingly, even if there was a lack of mutuality in the contract un......
-
State v. Cure, 99-2550.
...could not complain if he had been sentenced as agreed, see Madrigal v. State, 545 So.2d 392 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Clark v. State, 651 So.2d 1309 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)(while lie detector-sentencing agreement was initially unenforceable for lack of mutuality of obligation, state and court's perfor......