Johnson v. State, 79-1140

Decision Date09 January 1980
Docket NumberNo. 79-1140,79-1140
Citation378 So.2d 335
PartiesDanny C. JOHNSON, a/k/a Danny Clifford Johnson, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Jack O. Johnson, Public Defender, David A. Davis, Asst. Public Defender and Douglas A. Lockwood, Legal Intern, Bartow, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Eula Tuttle Mason, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

GRIMES, Chief Judge.

Where a defendant pleads guilty pursuant to a plea bargain and the court places him on probation, if he violates his probation can the court sentence him to a term in excess of the provisions of the original bargain? We answer the question in the affirmative.

The state charged appellant with armed robbery and carrying a concealed weapon. He pled guilty pursuant to a plea bargain under which he was to receive no more than concurrent sentences of five years on both charges. The court then placed him on probation for concurrent five year terms. A year and a half later the appellant violated his probation. The court revoked probation and sentenced him to concurrent five and ten year terms.

The third district court of appeal has held that since the punishment received by a probation violator is imposed under the original charge, this punishment cannot be in excess of the terms of the bargain upon which the defendant first entered a plea. Payne v. State, 372 So.2d 152 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); Overman v. State, 368 So.2d 434 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); Kord v. State, 361 So.2d 800 (Fla.3d DCA 1978); Segarra v. State, 360 So.2d 79 (Fla.3d DCA 1978). The fourth district court of appeal held to the contrary in Mulder v. State, 356 So.2d 870 (Fla.4th DCA 1978).

As between the two views, we opt for the position taken by the fourth district court of appeal. So long as the order of probation was within the terms of the agreement, the court has fulfilled the plea bargain. The events which bring about a revocation open a new chapter in which the court ought to be able to mete out any punishment within the limits prescribed for the crime.

In a different context the supreme court has held that the conduct of a defendant which leads to a probation revocation may be such as to allow the imposition of a greater punishment than would have been permitted at the time of the entry of the order of probation. In Scott v. State, 326 So.2d 165 (Fla.1976), the court held that a trial judge who previously sentenced a defendant to a term of years...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Summers v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • October 1, 1993
    ...chapter is opened and the court ought to be able to mete out any punishment within the limits prescribed for the crime. Johnson v. State, 378 So.2d 335 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), cert. denied, 402 So.2d 9 (Fla.1981). Section 948.06(1), Florida Statutes (1989), provides that if probation is revoked......
  • Aponte v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • March 6, 2002
    ...the third district decision, the court quoted the following language taken from the second district's decision in Johnson v. State, 378 So.2d 335 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980): As between the two views, we opt for the position taken by the fourth district court of appeal. So long as the order of proba......
  • State v. Segarra
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • September 4, 1980
    ...State is bound by the terms of an agreement which resulted in the initial imposition of probation. 356 So.2d at 871. In Johnson v. State, 378 So.2d 335 (Fla.2d DCA 1980), defendant pled guilty pursuant to a plea bargain under which he was to receive no more than concurrent sentences of five......
  • Bilyou v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • September 24, 1981
    ...757. The second and fourth district courts have held likewise. See Mulder v. State, 356 So.2d 870 (Fla.4th DCA 1978); Johnson v. State, 378 So.2d 335 (Fla.2d DCA 1980). As the fifth district court noted in its opinion, the Third District Court of Appeal has held contrarily. In Segarra v. St......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT