Cochran v. State
| Citation | 476 So.2d 207,10 Fla. L. Weekly 492 |
| Decision Date | 05 September 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 66388,66388 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 492 Danny Lee COCHRAN, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, and Paula S. Saunders, Asst. Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, for petitioner.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Henri C. Cawthon and Gregory G. Costas, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.
The First District Court of Appeal has certified the following question as being of great public interest:
When a defendant who committed a crime before 1 October 1983 affirmatively selects sentencing pursuant to the sentencing guidelines, must the record show the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived the right to parole eligibility?
Cochran v. State, 460 So.2d 542, 543 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4) of the state constitution. We agree with the district court that an affirmative selection is sufficient and answer the question in the negative.
In 1977 the state charged Cochran with uttering a false prescription. He pleaded guilty, and, after adjudicating him guilty, the trial court sentenced him to five years' probation. In 1977 the state filed an affidavit of violation of probation, charging five violations. In 1984 the state filed an amended affidavit, charging eight new instances of probation violation.
At his 1984 probation revocation hearing Cochran admitted the allegations in the amended affidavit, and the court revoked his probation. The court also told Cochran that, if he elected to be sentenced under the sentencing guidelines, the court would depart from the recommended sentence of any nonstate prison sanction. At sentencing Cochran elected to be sentenced under the guidelines. The trial court departed from the recommended sentence and imposed a five-year prison term. On appeal the district court affirmed the sentence and certified the question set out above.
Cochran argues that his sentence must be vacated because the record does not show that, by electing to be sentenced under guidelines, he knowingly and intelligently waived his eligibility for parole. The district court considered this same argument and found that an affirmative selection is all that is required. We agree.
Florida's sentencing guidelines do not provide for parole. § 921.001(8), Fla.Stat. (1983); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701 b.5. Cochran would have us rule that prisoners have a constitutional right to parole eligibility. In reality, however, parole is a matter of legislative grace. As stated by the United States Supreme Court: "There is no constitutional or inherent right of a convicted person to be conditionally released before the expiration of a valid sentence." Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7, 99 S.Ct. 2100, 2103-04, 60 L.Ed.2d 668 (1979).
Waiving eligibility for parole, therefore, is not comparable to a guilty plea, which implicates several federal constitutional rights, i.e., the privilege against...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Dep't of Corr., Case No.: 4:15cv12/MW/EMT
...hence no Fourteenth Amendment right to parole has been violated. There is no constitutional right to parole in Florida. Cochran v. State, 476 So. 2d 207, 208 (Fla. 1985); Hunter v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission, 674 F.2d 847, 848 (l1th Cir. 1982). As the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court ......
-
Bates v. State
...constitutional protections. See Bowles v. Singletary, 698 So.2d 1201 (Fla.1997); Melvin v. State, 645 So.2d 448 (Fla.1994); Cochran v. State, 476 So.2d 207 (Fla.1985). In fact, Florida's extensive sentencing guidelines scheme has always permitted a defendant convicted of a noncapital offens......
-
Stewart v. State, BC-473
...[his] probation." The first question raised in this appeal has been answered by the recent Florida Supreme Court opinion in Cochran v. State, 476 So.2d 207 (Fla.1985). In Cochran the court approved this court's decision in Cochran v. State, 460 So.2d 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), and held A defe......
-
Spradley v. Parole Comm'n
...Commission argues that the sword-wielder doctrine does not apply because there is no constitutional right to parole. See Cochran v. State, 476 So.2d 207, 208 (Fla.1985). However, “there is a right to a proper consideration for parole.” Moore v. Fla. Parole & Probation Comm'n, 289 So.2d 719,......