State v. Davis, 83-2823
| Decision Date | 12 February 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-2823,83-2823 |
| Citation | 464 So.2d 195,10 Fla. L. Weekly 433 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 433 The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Nathaniel DAVIS, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Michael J. Neimand, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Robin H. Greene, Asst. Public Defender, for appellee.
Before NESBITT, DANIEL S. PEARSON and JORGENSON, JJ.
The State of Florida seeks review of a sentence imposed by the trial court which was substantially below the guidelines' recommended range under section 921.001(5), Florida Statutes (1983). We agree with the state's position and, for the reasons which follow, reverse and remand with directions. 1
The essential facts which give rise to this appeal are as follows. Davis was caught red-handed by the police in a parking lot trying to break into a car. He was charged with attempted burglary of a conveyance and unlawful possession of a tool for use in a burglary or trespass. The state submitted a sentencing guideline score sheet with a total score of 78 points (the defendant had a substantial prior criminal history), which under the guidelines requires a sentence of three years in the state penitentiary. The state and the defendant entered into plea negotiations, the culmination of which was an offer by the state of one year of jail time, either as a condition of probation or as straight time. Characterizing the defendant as too stupid to warrant a year in the state penitentiary and the crime as too insignificant to warrant more than 90 days, the trial court, over the state's objection, offered Davis a plea of no contest with a sentence of 90 days and credit for all time previously served.
Although one might sympathize with a busy trial judge who has multiple cases to dispose of, each more serious than the next, the state, too, is entitled to its day in court. Prior to the establishment of sentencing guidelines, a trial court could accept a guilty or no contest plea from a defendant and proceed to sentence without interference by the state. Unlike the federal courts, Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(e)(1) (), state court judges have traditionally enjoyed wide discretion in their plea bargaining practices, see Davis v. State, 308 So.2d 27, 29 (Fla.1975) () and sentencing practices, appellate review being limited to unlawful sentences, see Langdon v. State, 330 So.2d 804, 805 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). Since the passage of sections 921.001, .005, Florida Statutes (1983), and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701, trial courts no longer enjoy...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Blackmon v. State
-
State v. Devine, 4-86-1978
...DCA 1986); Whitfield v. State, 490 So.2d 1358 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); State v. Caride, 473 So.2d 1362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); State v. Davis, 464 So.2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Thus, this reason was an improper basis for In this case, a valid downward deviation occurred pursuant to a plea bargain w......
-
State v. Soler, 89-81
...of a plea bargain in which the prosecution did not participate, State v. Johnson, 512 So.2d 1116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); State v. Davis, 464 So.2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), or, as the sentencing order states, that "the state's case [was] in jeopardy" are both legally insufficient. State v. McMull......
-
State v. Johnson
...to become rehabilitated, and that the defendant was a passive participant in the crime. As this court noted in State v. Davis, 464 So.2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), before the sentencing guidelines became law a trial judge had wide discretion in accepting a guilty or no contest plea in exchange......