ADAM ANGERMAN
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A disparity between the State's pre-trial plea offer and the sentence imposed by the trial court after trial, standing alone, does not create a presumption of vindictiveness nor require resentencing.
[1] A disparity between a prosecutor's pre-trial plea offer and the sentence imposed by a trial court following conviction does not, standing alone, establish prosecutorial v…
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“The disparity between the State's pre-trial plea offer and the sentence imposed by the trial court after trial, standing alone, does not create a presumption of vindictiveness nor require resentencing.”
Court's primary holding citing Concepcion v. State, 188 So. 3d 5, 10 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)
Adam Angerman was convicted after trial in Monroe County Circuit Court. The State had made a pre-trial plea offer that differed from the sentence ulti…
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 Appeal Of Criminal Conviction cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed December 31, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-0706 Lower Tribunal No. 20-CF-100-A-M
________________
Adam Angerman, Appellant,
vs.
State of Florida, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, James W. Morgan, III, Judge.
Brooke Elvington Appellate Law, and Brooke Elvington (Dunedin), for appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and David Llanes, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
Affirmed. See Concepcion v. State, 188 So. 3d 5, 10 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (“The disparity between the State's pre-trial plea offer and the sentence imposed by the trial court after trial, standing alone, does not create a presumption of vindictiveness nor require resentencing.”); see also Linn v. State, 921 So. 2d 830, 833 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (noting that element of knowledge may be proven by circumstantial evidence); Washington v. State, 737 So. 2d 1208, 1215–16 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (“The law is clear that a trial court should rarely, if ever, grant a motion for judgment of acquittal on the issue of intent. This is because proof of intent usually consists of the surrounding circumstances of the case.” (citation omitted)).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Washington v. State, 737 So. 2d 1208 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Linn v. State, 921 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- Grau v. State, 188 So. 3d 5 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)