Floyd v. State, 2D14–2596.
| Decision Date | 03 February 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D14–2596.,2D14–2596. |
| Parties | Nathan Christopher FLOYD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
198 So.3d 718
Nathan Christopher FLOYD, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 2D14–2596.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Feb. 3, 2016.
Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Dane K. Chase, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Susan M. Shanahan, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
SILBERMAN, Judge.
Nathan Christopher Floyd seeks review of his conviction and life sentence for sexual battery with a deadly weapon. We affirm Floyd's conviction without comment. However, because Floyd has established that his sentence was imposed in violation of his due process rights, we reverse and remand for resentencing.
Floyd was charged with sexual battery with a deadly weapon committed upon one of three local prostitutes he solicited in the fall of 2011. At the time Floyd's attorneys were preparing for trial, Floyd had already been convicted of sexual battery with a deadly weapon upon a second victim and sentenced to twenty years in prison followed by fifteen years of sex offender probation. Floyd's appeal of that judgment and sentence was awaiting resolution in this court. Charges related to a third victim remained pending.
At a pretrial hearing, defense counsel requested a continuance until after Floyd's appeal in the first case was decided. The court was disinclined to continue the case and wondered if there were any chance of Floyd's entering a plea. The court asked the prosecutor, “Okay. If you wanted to resolve the case today, what would you be willing to do for him?” The prosecutor said he had already offered Floyd twenty-five years in prison concurrent with the sentence in the first case.
The court relayed the offer to Floyd and told him how much credit for time served he would get. Defense counsel suggested that Floyd might be amenable to a plea if his appeal was affirmed but said he needed to talk to Floyd and appellate counsel. The court told defense counsel to call appellate counsel right away. The court then addressed Floyd as follows:
Here's the situation, Mr. Floyd. You have to understand that Target does two-for-one. I don't. If you were convicted of this charge by the jury and it was left up to me to sentence you, I don't generally sentence people to concurrent time. I'm not saying I never do it. But I don't generally do it. So your exposure is pretty dramatic in this matter. And 20 years or 25 years, I agree that's a long time, but you're a young guy. There's a chance you'd walk out of jail. If you got a consecutive sentence, that's an improbable proposition. So it's obviously a serious situation for you. I presume you to be innocent. If a jury finds you guilty again, though, I'm going to sentence you to what I believe is appropriate....
The court passed the case. When the case was recalled, defense counsel said Floyd planned to go to trial.
The court then heard argument on several motions in limine. Afterward, the court again brought up the State's offer:
I just want to make sure that you understand that when you go out the door, Mr. Floyd, I won't accept that offer on Monday morning. If you came in on Monday morning and said, you know, I had a change of heart and I'd like to resolve this for the 25 years, I'm going to say, you know, I can understand, I get it, but at the same time, I have a policy. Once you go out that door, I don't accept the second way to resolve the case. I always announce three ways to resolve the case: Trial by jury, deal with the State, open plea. Deal with the State goes out the door when you go out that door. And the reason is, I'm not doing it to be mean or anything like that—the reason is, and I may have explained this to you before—
I don't like to waste anybody's time....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State
...his attorney.There is no presumption of vindictiveness from the trial court's pre-trial colloquy with the defendant. See Floyd v. State, 198 So.3d 718 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (stating it was not a violation of Warner for judge to ask if defendant was aware of state's plea offer, explain the stat......
-
Evans v. State
...2d DCA 2005) ). Whether the trial court imposed a vindictive sentence is a legal question that we review de novo. Floyd v. State, 198 So. 3d 718, 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). Imposition of a vindictive sentence is fundamental error that may be raised for the first time on appeal, as is the case ......
-
Floyd v. State
...charged, and he was sentenced to life in prison. Although this court affirmed his conviction, we reversed his sentence. Floyd v. State, 198 So. 3d 718 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). On resentencing, the trial court imposed a twenty-seven-year prison sentence.Floyd timely filed his rule 3.850 motion, r......
-
Miscellaneous
...together gave rise to an unrebutted presumption of vindictiveness in violation of the defendant’s due process rights. Floyd v. State, 198 So. 3d 718 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) Retrial after a mistrial is barred by double jeopardy only if state misconduct goaded the defense into seeking a mistrial. ......
-
Judgment and sentence
...gave rise to an unrebutted presumption of vindictiveness in violation of the defendant’s due process rights. Floyd v. State, 198 So. 3d 718 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE 7.2 The Florida Criminal Cases Notebook 7-32 (See Wright v. State , 941 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) for dis......