Taylor v. State, 2D12–6180.
| Decision Date | 07 February 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D12–6180.,2D12–6180. |
| Citation | 132 So.3d 882 |
| Parties | Alexander TAYLOR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Joshua W. Westcott of Joshua W. Westcott, P.A., Kissimmee, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Anne Sheer Weiner, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
Alexander Taylor appeals his judgment and sentence following the denial of his postsentence motion to withdraw plea, which was filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170( l ). He argues that the trial court erred in denying the motion because there was no mutual agreement as to the sentence negotiated in his written plea agreement. After a review of this record, we conclude that Mr. Taylor was entitled to withdraw his plea because he demonstrated that he did not knowingly plead to the sentence that was ultimately imposed. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. As explained at the end of this opinion, we reverse only the denial of the motion in order to give Mr. Taylor a final opportunity to confirm that he wishes to withdraw his plea.
Mr. Taylor was charged, along with Glenn D. Sanchez, Jr., and Ryan A. Noriega, with armed robbery and unauthorized use of a credit card. The three men apparently robbed a woman of her wallet and then used her credit card. All three men have been sentenced for these offenses.1
Mr. Taylor entered into a negotiated plea on January 13, 2012, using a standard form. He pleaded guilty to the offenses as charged. The terms of the agreement relating to the sentence were abbreviated. In the space after “FSP” someone hand wrote “TBD by court w/ 10yr FSP CAP.” On the next line of the form, in the space after “Probation,” a rough arrow was drawn to the space between “w/” and “10yr” in the preceding line, followed by the letters “TBD.”
The plea hearing was conducted by Senior Judge Barbara Fleischer on the same day that Mr. Taylor signed the written form. Following a private discussion with his mother, Mr. Taylor reached this agreement. His attorney described the agreement to the court as follows:
To explain the recommended disposition it is going to be a cap. The State is recommending if Mr. Taylor is willing to plead as charged that the disposition would be determined by the Court essentially at a sentencing hearing. However, in no event would he be sentenced to anything greater than ten years Florida State Prison.After this explanation, Judge Fleischer asked if Mr. Taylor understood what his lawyer had just explained. Mr. Taylor agreed that he did. It was further agreed that the State was not alleging that Mr. Taylor actually had physical possession of any firearm during this robbery. Judge Fleischer asked the usual questions that occur at a plea hearing, including whether anyone had promised Mr. Taylor anything besides that he would have a capped sentence whereby “the most the Court could sentence [him] to would be ten years.” The court explained that “[a]nything underneath that,” would be up to the court. Mr. Taylor acknowledged that he understood. Thereafter, Judge Fleischer confirmed that Mr. Taylor knew that a different judge would sentence him and that he agreed to this circumstance.
The sentencing hearing was conducted by Judge Martha Cook on February 23, 2012. Following testimony, Judge Cook explained her understanding of the plea agreement: Neither attorney at the hearing objected to this description of the agreement. Ultimately, Judge Cook sentenced Mr. Taylor to a split sentence: ten years' imprisonment followed by five years' probation.
With the assistance of counsel, Mr. Taylor filed a timely motion to set aside his sentence. Mr. Taylor maintained that he understood that he had negotiated a sentence, the total of which could not exceed ten years. The sentence he received did not exceed ten years in prison, but including the probation it was fifteen years in length.
We interpret the abbreviation on the negotiated plea form to mean that Mr. Taylor was agreeing to a term in the Florida state prison system that was to be determined by the court with a maximum term of ten years. The unusual problem in this case is the meaning of the rough arrow drawn from the lower line to the upper line.
Mr. Taylor interprets the arrow to mean that both the term of imprisonment and any term of probation had to fit within the ten-year cap. That is not an unreasonable interpretation. In light of the statements made by Judge Fleischer at the plea hearing, Mr. Taylor's understanding of the plea agreement appears completely reasonable.
Judge Cook's interpretation of the agreement is also reasonable. With no objection from the attorneys, we cannot fault Judge Cook's decision to sentence Mr. Taylor in accordance...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Small v. State, Case No. 2D16–725
...occasions, that a defendant cannot enforce a plea agreement against the State after withdrawing a plea. See, e.g., Taylor v. State, 132 So.3d 882, 885 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (reasoning that defendant could withdraw his plea, but could not enforce the plea agreement against the State); Ciambrone......
-
Tyler v. State
...charges abrogates the entire plea bargain. See Whitaker v. State , 881 So.2d 80, 82 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) ; see also Taylor v. State , 132 So.3d 882, 885 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (holding that although an ambiguity in the defendant's plea agreement entitled him to withdraw his plea, "that same ambi......