Novaton v. State
| Decision Date | 24 March 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 81183,81183 |
| Citation | 634 So.2d 607 |
| Parties | 19 Fla. L. Weekly S136 Juan NOVATON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Bennett H. Burmmer, Public Defender, and Louis Campbell, Asst. Public Defender, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami, Florida, for petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Randall Sutton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, for respondent.
This is a petition to review Novaton v. State, 610 So.2d 726 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), in which the district court held that, when Juan Novaton entered into a bargained plea of guilty to multiple charges and to the sentences for those charges, he waived double jeopardy objections to the sentences that formed part of that plea agreement. The district court acknowledged that language in its opinion conflicted with Arnold v. State, 578 So.2d 515 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), and Kurtz v. State, 564 So.2d 519 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). We find that we have jurisdiction 1 and we approve the district court decision in the instant case.
The relevant facts reflect that Novaton was charged with multiple violent offenses arising from two separate incidents in 1990. Because he had two prior felony convictions, Novaton faced the possibility of being treated as a habitual violent felony offender and a probable sentence of life in prison without parole. Recognizing this possibility, Novaton entered into a plea bargain in which the State "agreed, among other things, to forgo the possibility of securing a life-without-parole habitual-violent-offender sentence [and] Novaton agreed to plead guilty to all of the charges and to [accept] concurrent sentences totaling fifty years, subject to a fifteen year minimum-mandatory requirement." Novaton, 610 So.2d at 727. All of the charges and sentences included in the plea agreement were part of the colloquy between Novaton and the trial judge, and Novaton specifically agreed to plead guilty to the charged offenses and to the sentences imposed. As a result of this plea bargain, Novaton was adjudicated guilty and sentenced for enhanced felonies of burglary, robbery, and aggravated battery with a firearm and, in addition, was adjudicated guilty and sentenced for two separate crimes of possessing a firearm in the commission of the same felonies. These latter two sets of convictions and sentences would ordinarily be barred by the double jeopardy principles set forth in our recent decision in Cleveland v. State, 587 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1991).
On appeal, the district court found "a waiver of a Cleveland-type violation with respect to multiple convictions takes place when the defendant voluntarily pleads guilty to the alleged duplicitous charges." Novaton, 610 So.2d at 727. With regard to the sentence, the district court acknowledged that "a mere plea does not waive a challenge to dual or multiple sentences." Id. The district court found that the situation in this case was different because "the defendant agreed ... to the imposition of specified sentences tendered by the state in partial consideration of its own agreement for leniency in other respects." Id. at 727-28. The district court stated: "[A]n agreement to the sentences waives the protection from multiple punishments," and explained that it had "upheld otherwise arguably defective sentences when they have been voluntarily accepted by the defendant as part of a mutually advantageous agreement with the state." Id. at 728 (citing Madrigal v. State, 545 So.2d 392 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Jacobs v. State, 522 So.2d 540 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 531 So.2d 1353 (Fla.1988); Preston v. State, 411 So.2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 418 So.2d 1280 (Fla.1982); Smith v. State, 345 So.2d 1080 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 353 So.2d 678 (Fla.1977)). In its final conclusion, the district court noted: "Having accepted its benefits by avoiding a life sentence without parole, Novaton cannot, any more than any other contracting party, be relieved of the burden of his contract." Id.
The district court expressly noted in its decision that the Fourth District Court's decision in Arnold and the Second District Court's decision in Kurtz were contrary to its position in this case. In Arnold the defendant had pleaded nolo contendere to a charge of possession of cocaine and a separate charge of delivery of cocaine. The district court determined that these charges violated the defendant's double jeopardy rights and ordered that one of the convictions be vacated. The State claimed on appeal that, even if the charges amounted to double jeopardy, the defendant had waived his double jeopardy claim when he pleaded nolo contendere. The district court, however, rejected the State's argument, stating: "[A] plea does not constitute a waiver either of an improper conviction ... or of an illegal sentence." Arnold, 578 So.2d at 517.
In Kurtz, the defendant had entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charges of DUI manslaughter, manslaughter with culpable negligence, and DUI. The trial judge adjudicated him guilty on all three charges but sentenced him only on the DUI manslaughter conviction. Kurtz reserved the right to appeal the trial judge's ruling that he could be adjudicated guilty of all three charges arising out of a single traffic accident. The district court affirmed Kurtz's DUI manslaughter conviction and sentence, but reversed his adjudication of guilty for manslaughter with culpable negligence and held that trial courts are not permitted to enter an adjudication of guilty for an offense when a sentence could not be legally imposed for that same offense.
Arnold and Kurtz conflict with the instant case because of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nurse v. State
...clear that neither crime is a 'lesser offense' because the two carry the same penalty."), disapproved on other grounds, Novaton v. State, 634 So.2d 607 (Fla.1994) (double jeopardy issue). Second, one of the basic underlying policy reasons for allowing a jury to convict on a lesser included ......
-
Lee v. State, CASE NO. 1D15-0943
...In that situation the double jeopardy violation must be apparent from the face of the record. Id. at 1211 (citing Novaton v. State, 634 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 1994)). It is in the situation where a double jeopardy violation is first raised on appeal that the burden is on the defendant. Griffith, ......
-
Lee v. State
...appeal. In that situation the double jeopardy violation must be apparent from the face of the record. Id. at 1211 (citing Novaton v. State , 634 So.2d 607 (Fla. 1994) ). It is in the situation where a double jeopardy violation is first raised on appeal that the burden is on the defendant. G......
-
Hunsicker v. State, No. 5D03-373
...rights may be waived when a defendant enters into a negotiated plea agreement with the state for a specific sentence. See Novaton v. State, 634 So.2d 607 (Fla.1994); Barfield v. State, 871 So.2d 929 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Rosado v. State, 867 So.2d 440, 442 (Fla. 4th DCA 3. See also Cruller v......
-
Tragedy behind the wheel: understanding manslaughter by culpable negligence, vehicular homicide, and DUI manslaughter.
...to more than one homicide offense stemming from a single death, then the defendant waives double jeopardy objections. Novaton v. State, 634 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 1994); Melvin v. State, 645 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 1994); Mandelbaum v. State, 676 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. [39] Id.; see also United Sta......