Case Title: State v. Adams

Citation: 342 So. 2d 818

Docket Number: 

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 1977-02-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
342 So. 2d 818 (1977)
STATE of Florida, Petitioner,
v.
Robert William ADAMS, Respondent.
No. 49209.

Supreme Court of Florida.
February 10, 1977.
*819 Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, for respondent.
ADKINS, Justice.
By petition for certiorari, we have for review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District (Adams v. State, 328 So.2d 48), which allegedly conflicts with a prior decision of this court (Brown v. State, 245 So.2d 41) on the same point of law. Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution.
The respondent, defendant in the trial court, and two other persons were charged with the crime of robbery. Defendant withdrew a plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty to the offense of robbery, pursuant to plea bargaining, in accordance with the following announcement by defendant's attorney:
The trial judge did not participate in the plea bargaining between the State and defense counsel. Before accepting the plea of guilty, he made the necessary inquiry to determine that the plea was voluntarily and intelligently entered, and that there was a factual basis for the plea. After a presentence investigation, the trial judge refused to accept the recommendation of the state attorney and sentenced the defendant to a term of twenty years.
On appeal the District Court of Appeal vacated the sentence and remanded the case so that the trial court could either impose sentence in accordance with the plea bargain or vacate the judgment and offer respondent an opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea. In its opinion, the Court said:
In Brown v. State, supra, the defendant was led to change his plea from not guilty to guilty due to an honest misunderstanding and mutual mistake as to the expected sentence. This resulted, to a large extent, from statements made in a conference attended by defense counsel, prosecutor and judge. This Court held that defendant's motion to substitute the plea of not guilty for a plea of guilty should have been granted by the trial court. We recognized that *820 the trial court was not bound by any recommendations made by the state attorney when we said:
In Davis v. State, 308 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 1975), we stated once again:
The requirement of the District Court of Appeal in the case sub judice that the sentencing judge should "advise appellant that judicial concurrence with the bargain was impossible" is in conflict with the above cases, and we have jurisdiction.
The record of the sentencing procedure contains the following:
The only bargain was that the state attorney would make a recommendation to the court. This was done. When the sentence was imposed, the judge was not bound by the recommendation of the state attorney or any negotiations which occurred between the state attorney and the defense counsel.
The decision of the District Court of Appeal is quashed and the cause is remanded for the purpose of a further remand to the trial court with instructions to reinstate the sentence.
It is so ordered.
OVERTON, C.J., and BOYD, ENGLAND, SUNDBERG, HATCHETT and KARL, JJ., concur.