State v. Adams
| Decision Date | 10 February 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 49209,49209 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Robert William ADAMS, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, for respondent.
By petition for certiorari, we have for review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District (Adams v. State, 328 So.2d 48), which allegedly conflicts with a prior decision of this court (Brown v. State, 245 So.2d 41) on the same point of law. Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution.
The respondent, defendant in the trial court, and two other persons were charged with the crime of robbery. Defendant withdrew a plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty to the offense of robbery, pursuant to plea bargaining, in accordance with the following announcement by defendant's attorney:
'Your Honor, at this time, in behalf of Robert William Adams, wish to withdraw our plea of not guilty and enter a plea of guilty to the offense of robbery under the plea bargaining. . . .
'The terms of the plea bargaining, Your Honor, was that the State would recommend not over ten years sentence in the event the Court felt that the Defendant should be sentenced.'
The trial judge did not participate in the plea bargaining between the State and defense counsel. Before accepting the plea of guilty, he made the necessary inquiry to determine that the plea was voluntarily and intelligently entered, and that there was a factual basis for the plea. After a presentence investigation, the trial judge refused to accept the recommendation of the state attorney and sentenced the defendant to a term of twenty years.
On appeal the District Court of Appeal vacated the sentence and remanded the case so that the trial court could either impose sentence in accordance with the plea bargain or vacate the judgment and offer respondent an opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea. In its opinion, the Court said:
'While the trial court emphasized when appellant tendered the guilty plea that the court was not bound by the prosecutor's recommendation and that the maximum sentence was life imprisonment, at no point did the sentencing judge advise appellant that judicial concurrence with the bargain was impossible.' 328 So.2d 48.
In Brown v. State, supra, the defendant was led to change his plea from not guilty to guilty due to an honest misunderstanding and mutual mistake as to the expected sentence. This resulted, to a large extent, from statements made in a conference attended by defense counsel, prosecutor and judge. This Court held that defendant's motion to substitute the plea of not guilty for a plea of guilty should have been granted by the trial court. We recognized that the trial court was not bound by any recommendations made by the state attorney when we said:
'(A) judge is not bound to grant probation and . . . an accused cannot withdraw his guilty plea merely because the sentence did not conform to what he hoped it might be. . . .
'If the State and defense counsel agree upon a specific statement of facts constituting the crime to be admitted and with the further understanding regarding the effect of subsequent presentence investigation, we see no reason why a judge should not, if he chooses, make a specific announcement of the sentence he will impose upon a guilty plea.
'We repeat that a judge is never bound in sentencing by these negotiations.' 245 So.2d at 43--44.
In Davis v. State, 308 So.2d 27 (Fla.1975), we...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Porreca
...prior to the acceptance of a negotiated guilty plea. See State v. Cagnina, 113 Ariz. 387, 555 P.2d 345, 346 (1976); State v. Adams, 342 So.2d 818, 820 (Fla.1977); State v. Gumienny, 58 Haw. 304, 568 P.2d 1194, 1199 (1977); Almada v. State, 108 Idaho 221, 697 P.2d 1235, 1237 (1985); People v......
-
American Motors Corp. v. Abrahantes
... ... (2) A defendant who is engaged in substantial and not isolated activity within this state, whether such activity is wholly interstate, intrastate, or otherwise, is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state, whether or not the ... ...
-
Com. v. DeMarco
...In these circumstances, the defendant could not claim that he was unfairly surprised by the severity of his sentence. See State v. Adams, 342 So.2d 818 (Fla.1977); People v. Serr, 73 Mich.App. 19, 24-25, 250 N.W.2d 535 (1976); Washington v. State, 545 S.W.2d 461 (Tex.Cr.App.1976).3 Prior to......
-
Adler v. State, s. 79-134
...its bargain because the trial court was not bound by any such recommendation and the defendant clearly understood it. State v. Adams, 342 So.2d 818 (Fla.1977) and Wood v. State, 346 So.2d 143 (Fla. 1st DCA Singularly and collectively, it is apparent that no good cause was demonstrated to th......