Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): permitting defendant to evade his negotiated plea by filing a motion to mitigate would discourage the State from entering into future plea bargains with other defendants. See Swett, 772 So.2d at 52. Moreover, the trial court, pursuant to the plea agreement, did not have discretion over defendant’s sentence and, therefore, should have denied defendant’s motion to mitigate. See Arango v. State, 891 So.2d 1195, 1196 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (concluding that denial of a motion for extension of time to file a motion to mitigate was proper because the motion to mitigate would have been futile where the plea agreement imposed upon defendant a specific sentence and did not give the trial court any discretion over the length of the sentence); State v. Brooks, 890 So.2d 503, 505 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (<HOLDING>). We reverse the trial court’s order and remand 
 Holding statements: (A) holding trial court erred in denying defendants motion for arrest of judgment where indictment was insufficient (B) holding that the trial court erred by granting the defendants motion to dismiss (C) holding that a trial court erred in granting a defendants motion to mitigate where the defendants original sentence was imposed pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement (D) holding that the trial court did not err by granting defendants motion for summary judgment (E) holding that a trial court may rescind an order granting defendants motion for new trial within 75dayperiod allowed for ruling on the defendants motion
Output (English): holding that a trial court may rescind an order granting defendants motion for new trial within 75dayperiod allowed for ruling on the defendants motion