TOD REDMAN STEWART, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appellate court reversed a 15-year sentence imposed after trial where the trial court had offered 5 years in plea negotiations, finding a due process violation under the Pearce doctrine due to a reasonable likelihood the harsher sentence was imposed as punishment for rejecting the plea and proceeding to trial.
A trial court violates a defendant's due process rights by imposing a substantially harsher sentence after trial than was offered in pretrial plea negotiations when there is a reasonable likelihood the increase was imposed because the defendant rejected the plea and proceeded to trial.
[1] A trial court violates due process by imposing a substantially increased sentence after trial compared to a pretrial plea offer when there is a reasonable likelihood the…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“there is a 'reasonable likelihood' that the harsher sentence was imposed because Mr. Stewart insisted on proceeding to a jury trial, at which he represented himself, rather than accepting the trial court's pretrial plea offer”
Court's explanation of the due process violation and basis for reversing the sentence
Tod Redman Stewart was charged with second-degree felony robbery. The trial court offered him a five-year sentence in pretrial plea negotiations, but …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Plea Negotiations cases and more on FLexlaw
Tod Redman Stewart appeals his judgment and sentence for second-degree felony robbery entered upon a jury’s guilty verdict. The only issue raised in this appeal concerns whether Mr. Stewart’s constitutional right to due process was violated by the imposition of an increased sentence after unsuccessful plea negotiations in which the trial court participated. Prior to trial, the court offered Mr. Stewart a five-year term of imprisonment. After trial, the court imposed the maximum sentence of fifteen years’ imprisonment. The State candidly concedes error. The State’s concession of error is proper given that under the totality of the circumstances in this case there is a “reasonable likelihood” that the harsher sentence was imposed because Mr. Stewart insisted on proceeding to a jury trial, at which he represented himself, rather than accepting the trial court’s pretrial plea offer. See Harris v. State, 903 So.2d 363, 366 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Cambridge v. State, 884 So.2d 535, 537-38 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, reverse the sentence, and remand for resentencing before a different judge.
Judgment affirmed; sentence reversed; case remanded for resentencing.
SILBERMAN, C.J., and WALLACE, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Cambridge v. State, 884 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Harris v. State, 903 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)