DAVID LAMAR WOOD, 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.
David Wood appealed his conviction for marijuana possession, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to withdraw a nolo contendere plea on the ground that the State breached the plea bargaining agreement. The court affirmed, holding that the State did not breach the agreement because the prosecutor remained silent at sentencing, and statements made by a narcotics officer in the presentence investigation report were not attributable to the State.
No. The trial court did not err. The prosecutor honored the plea bargain by remaining silent at sentencing. The statements made by a narcotics officer in the presentence investigation report do not constitute a breach by the State, as the officer was not a representative of the prosecutor's office.
[1] A plea of nolo contendere may be vacated if the State breaches a plea bargain agreement.
[2] A plea bargain agreement is not breached when a law enforcement officer, interviewed for a presentence investigation report, expresses an opinion on sentencing, provided…
Previewing 2 of 4 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 defense will enter a plea of no contest to Count 4, which is possession of marijuana. In essence, Your Honor, we are going to enter this plea in open matter with no recommendations by the State other than the fact that they will remain mute at sentencing and will not recommend incarceration or probation or whatever, a fine or what-not.”
Establishes the terms of the plea bargain—the State agreed to remain silent at sentencing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWood entered into a plea bargain whereby he would plead no contest to possession of marijuana in exchange for the State's agreement to remain silent a…
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 Breach Of Plea Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
McCORD, Judge.
This is an appeal from judgment and sentence of appellant for possession of more than five grams of marijuana. The sole point on appeal is whether or not the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to vacate and set aside his plea of nolo conten-dere made prior to sentencing. We find no error and affirm.
Appellant appeared before the court to enter a plea pursuant to plea bargaining with the State and his privately retained counsel stated:
“ . . The defense will enter a plea of no contest to Count 4, which is possession of marijuana. In essence, Your Hon-or, we are going to enter this plea in open matter with no recommendations by the State other than the fact that they will remain mute at sentencing and will not recommend incarceration or probation or whatever, a fine or what-not. We are just going to enter a plea of no contest as to Count 4.”
On a subsequent date, appellant with his counsel appeared before the court for sentencing and at that time moved to withdraw appellant’s plea of nolo contendere on the ground that the state had breached the plea bargain agreement. Appellant called attention to the fact that the presentence investigation report of the Parole and Probation Commission states “Officer Don Hicks of the First Circuit Narcotics Task Force stated that they had a good possession and sale case on the defendant and co-defendants,” and that as far as he was concerned, “the defendant can to to jail. He has been in marijuana for a pretty good while.” Officer Hicks further stated for the presentence investigation report, “Let the Judge abide by the statutes and they can serve some time.”
The trial judge ruled there had been no breach of the plea bargain agreement, the assistant state attorney having remained mute at sentencing and having made no recommendation on sentencing. The trial judge pointed out that the Parole and Probation Commission, in its presentence investigations, interviews numerous persons and reports the statements made by each; that his concern was with appellant’s previous criminal record (which he outlined in some detail) and not with what Officer Hicks thought the court should do. The assistant state attorney contended that his promise was that the state attorney’s office would remain mute as to sentence and that he did not promise that all other people who had an input into the presentence investigation would remain mute; that he had no knowledge that Officer Hicks was going to say anything or what he would say in the pre-sentence investigation.
Appellant relies heavily upon Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971), in which the United States Supreme Court remanded a somewhat similar case to the state court when it found the plea bargain agreement had been violated by the State. The prosecuting attorney had agreed he would make no recommendation as to sentence, but at sentencing another prosecutor, who replaced the prosecutor who had negotiated the plea, recommended the maximum sentence. Such is not the situation in the ease sub judice. Here the prosecutor made no recommendation or comment regarding sentence and we do not consider that Officer Hicks’ statement should be considered a recommendation of the State. The State was, of course, represented in the proceedings by the state attorney’s office and the assistant state attorney who handled the case was the spokesman for the State.
Affirmed.
RAWLS, Acting C. J., and SMITH, J., concur.