Wright v. State
Decision Date | 10 April 2019 |
Docket Number | Case No. 2D18-1164 |
Citation | 268 So.3d 208 |
Parties | Shannon WRIGHT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Robert D. Rosen, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Donna S. Koch, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
Shannon Wright's sole argument on appeal is that his double jeopardy rights were violated when he was convicted of both the unlawful use of a two-way communications device under section 934.215, Florida Statutes (2017), and using a computer to seduce, solicit, lure, or entice a child under section 847.0135(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2017), and that this violation constituted fundamental error. Because the legal argument is correct, we reverse Wright's conviction for the unlawful use of a two-way communications device and remand for the trial court to enter an amended judgment and resentence Wright accordingly.
The underlying charges occurred after Wright, a previously designated sex offender, sent a lewd text message to his minor stepdaughter. Thereafter, he was charged with unlawful use of a two-way communications device and use of a computer to solicit a child. He was also charged with two counts of failure to register in another case.
At a plea hearing, the State informed the court that it would be dropping one of the failure to register charges. The following exchange then occurred:
Wright entered a no contest plea to all charges and the trial court sentenced him to consecutive five-year prison terms for the convictions for unlawful use of a two-way communications device and using a computer to solicit a child, as well as a consecutive five-year term of sex offender probation for one failure to register conviction. The State subsequently nolle prossed the remaining failure to register charge.
We review a double jeopardy violation based on undisputed facts under a de novo standard. See Latos v. State, 39 So.3d 511, 513 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (quoting Finkley v. State, 16 So.3d 329, 329 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) ). "A double jeopardy violation can be raised for the first time on appeal because it constitutes fundamental error." Holubek v. State, 173 So.3d 1114, 1116 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (citing Gross v. State, 138 So.3d 590, 591 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) ).
Typically, the entry of a guilty plea "precludes an attack premised on a violation of double jeopardy." Id. (citing United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 569, 109 S.Ct. 757, 102 L.Ed.2d 927 (1989) ).
However, the Florida Supreme Court explained that there is an exception to the general rule when a defendant can demonstrate: "(a) the plea is a general plea as distinguished from a plea bargain; (b) the double jeopardy violation is apparent from the record; and (c) there is nothing in the record to indicate a waiver of the double jeopardy violation." Id. (quoting Novaton v. State, 634 So.2d 607, 609 (Fla. 1994) ). All three prongs must be present and apparent on the face of the record for the exception to apply.
"A general plea is one where no agreement exists as to the sentence the defendant will receive; ‘[a]n agreement to a specific sentence or a specific sentencing benefit is a key element distinguishing a bargained plea agreement from a general one.’ " Latos, 39 So.3d at 513 (alteration in original) (quoting Williamson v. State, 859 So.2d 553, 554 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) ). In Latos, for example, the State argued that although the defendant's plea might technically be considered an open plea, it was actually a bargained-for agreement because the plea was based on "off-the-record" negotiations for substantial assistance. Id. at 513-14. The Fourth District Court of Appeal disagreed, noting that it was clear from the record that Latos' plea was an open plea since the trial judge confirmed Latos understood there was "no specific agreed upon sentence." Id. at 514. See also Marsh v. State, 253 So.3d 674, 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) ( ). It is thus well-settled that an open plea, without a specific agreement as to sentencing, does not amount to a plea bargain.
With regard to the first prong of Novaton, the State's only argument on appeal is the same argument that was made in Latos—that Wright's open plea was in fact a plea bargain because the State indicated it would nolle pros one of the failure to register charges after Wright entered his plea. The exchange during the plea colloquy, however, clearly demonstrates there was no specific agreement as to Wright's sentence. At the beginning of the exchange, the trial judge astutely asked if the plea was pursuant to a plea agreement, which both the State and the defense confirmed that it was not. The judge further asked Wright whether he understood that the maximum penalty he faced was twenty years in prison, which Wright confirmed. Because there was no specific plea agreement, the judge had complete...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Martinez v. State
...plea of guilty. "A general plea is one where no agreement exists as to the sentence the defendant will receive." Wright v. State, 268 So. 3d 208, 211 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (quoting Latos v. State, 39 So. 3d 511, 513 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) ). "An agreement to a specific sentence or a specific sent......
-
Moret v. State
...Code scoresheet."[A]n open plea, without a specific agreement as to sentencing, does not amount to a plea bargain." Wright v. State , 268 So. 3d 208, 211 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019).Mr. Moret entered an open plea of no contest, with no agreement regarding his sentence. But the scoresheet incorrectly......
- Byra v. State
-
Moret v. State
... ... We affirm. However, we remand for correction of a ... scrivener's error in Mr. Moret's Criminal Punishment ... Code scoresheet ... "[A]n ... open plea, without a specific agreement as to sentencing, ... does not amount to a plea bargain." Wright v ... State, 268 So.3d 208, 211 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) ... Mr ... Moret entered an open plea of no contest, with no agreement ... regarding his sentence. But the scoresheet incorrectly ... contains a checkmark next to the box indicating that the ... ...
-
Pretrial motions and defenses
...waive the right to appeal where there is no express waiver of the right to appeal a possible double jeopardy violation. Wright v. State, 268 So. 3d 208 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) Where a defendant repeatedly brandished a firearm during a single criminal episode without a temporal break allowing the......
-
Appeals
...waive the right to appeal where there is no express waiver of the right to appeal a possible double jeopardy violation. Wright v. State, 268 So. 3d 208 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) During voir dire, a juror expressed that she may find the defendant guilty if he does not testify. Defendant’s strike fo......