Case Name: STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Miguel SEGARRA, Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1980-09-04
Citations: 388 So. 2d 1017
Docket Number: No. 54928
Parties: STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Miguel SEGARRA, Respondent.
Judges: SUNDBERG, C. J., and OVERTON and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 388
Pages: 1017–1021

Head Matter:
STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Miguel SEGARRA, Respondent.
No. 54928.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Sept. 4, 1980.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 30, 1980.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Margarita Es-quiroz and Steven L. Bolotin, Asst. Attys. Gen., Miami, for petitioner.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Beth C. Weitzner, Asst. Public Defender, Miami, for respondent.

Opinion:
ADKINS, Justice.
By petition for certiorari we have for review a decision of the Third District Court of Appeal Segarra v. State, 360 So.2d 79 (Fla.3d DCA 1978), which allegedly conflicts with a prior decision of another district court of appeal Mulder v. State, 356 So.2d 870 (Fla.4th DCA 1978), on the same point of law. Art. V, section 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.
The defendant, Segarra, was charged with burglary, a second degree felony carrying a maximum sentence of fifteen years. Plea negotiation resulted in a plea of guilty with a five-year cap in possible sentence. After a presentence investigation the trial court sentenced defendant to five years probation with two conditions, one of which defendant violated. The trial court revoked defendant's probation and sentenced defendant to fifteen years. The district court of appeal reversed this decision and held that the maximum sentence which the court could impose upon violation of the probation was five years. The court pointed out that there had been an agreed maximum sentence of five years as part of plea negotiations which was accepted and approved by the defendant, the prosecutor and the judge.
In Mulder v. State, supra, the defendant, after plea negotiations, entered a plea of guilty with an agreement that the maximum sentence to be imposed would be for a two-year term. The trial judge placed defendant on probation. Defendant violated the conditions and, upon revocation of probation, was sentenced to three years incarceration. The district court of appeal affirmed and referred to section 948.06(1), Florida Statutes (1975), which provides that after probation has been revoked the trial judge can "impose any sentence which it might have originally imposed before placing the probationer on probation." In its opinion the Court said:
Accepting appellant's contentions would lead to absurd results. If the original plea negotiations including [sic] an understanding that a defendant would be placed on probation, and the court agreed, the court would then be unable to impose any prison sentence in the event probation was subsequently revoked. It cannot be said that the legislature intended to leave society without any recourse against those defendants who receive the benefit of the court's mercy by being placed on probation and, subsequently, violate the terms thereof.
Appellant, having violated the terms of his probation, cannot now be heard to argue that the State is bound by the terms of an agreement which resulted in the initial imposition of probation.
356 So.2d at 871.
In Johnson v. State, 378 So.2d 335 (Fla.2d DCA 1980), defendant pled guilty pursuant to a plea bargain under which he was to receive no more than concurrent sentences of five years on both charges. At the sentencing hearing defendant's attorney requested that he receive another chance. The court placed defendant on probation but admonished him that if revocation became necessary it might imprison him for a period of up to twenty years. A year and a half later the defendant violated his probation. The court revoked probation and sentenced him to concurrent five and ten-year terms. Upon appeal, this judgment and sentence was affirmed, the court saying:
The third district court of appeal has held that since the punishment received by a probation violator is imposed under the original charge, this punishment cannot be in excess of the terms of the bargain upon which the defendant first entered a plea. Payne v. State, 372 So.2d 152 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); Overman v. State, 368 So.2d 434 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); Kord v. State, 361 So.2d 800 (Fla.3d DCA 1978); Segarra v. State, 360 So.2d 79 (Fla.3d DCA 1978). The fourth district court of appeal held to the contrary in Mulder v. State, 356 So.2d 870 (Fla.4th DCA 1978).
As between the two views, we opt for the position taken by the fourth district court of appeal. So long as the order of probation was within the terms of the agreement, the court has fulfilled the plea bargain. The events which bring about a revocation open a new chapter in which the court ought to be able to mete out any punishment within the limits prescribed for the crime.
In a different context the supreme court has held that the conduct of a defendant which leads to a probation revocation may be such as to allow the imposition of a greater punishment than would have been permitted at the time of the entry of the order of probation. In Scott v. State, 326 So.2d 165 (Fla.1976), the court held that a trial judge who previously sentenced a defendant to a term of years less than the maximum allowed by law could, after a new trial in which the defendant is placed on probation, impose for violation of the terms of probation any sentence up to the maximum which could have been originally imposed. 378 So.2d 335-36.
We follow the reasoning of the Second District Court of Appeal and the Fourth District Court of Appeal. We therefore hold that when a defendant pleads guilty pursuant to a plea bargain and the court places him on probation, if he violates his probation the court can sentence him to a term in excess of the provisions of the original bargain.
The decision of the district court of appeal is quashed and the cause is remanded with instructions to affirm the sentence imposed by the trial court.
It is so ordered.
SUNDBERG, C. J., and OVERTON and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur.
ENGLAND, J., dissents with an opinion, with which BOYD, J., concurs.