Case Name: Joe Edward LEE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1986-01-15
Citations: 490 So. 2d 80
Docket Number: No. BG-38
Parties: Joe Edward LEE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: BARFIELD, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 490
Pages: 80–85

Head Matter:
Joe Edward LEE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. BG-38.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Jan. 15, 1986.
Terry N. Silverman, Gainesville, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

Opinion:
JOANOS, Judge.
Joe Edward Lee appeals from the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress and denial of his motion to withdraw plea of nolo contendere. Lee presents two points for review: (1) whether the state's contingent fee agreement with the confidential informant whereby the informant was to produce evidence against Lee violated Lee's right to due process; and (2) whether the trial court erred in denying Lee's motion to withdraw his plea, when a law enforcement officer recommended incarceration. We affirm, but certify the question on point two on the basis of conflict with the Fourth District Court of Appeal.
On November 19, 1984, Lee was charged in four counts with possession and sale of cocaine on January 19, 1984, and with possession and sale of cocaine on January 20, 1984. On January 20, 1985, Lee filed a motion to dismiss for improper governmental conduct, alleging that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) entered into an oral contract with a confidential informant, which agreement provided a contingent fee to the informant for purchases of controlled substances from Lee.
In explaining the circumstances of the informant's employment, FDLE Agent Collins stated that in 1983 he was summoned to the Duval County Sheriff's Office. When he arrived at the sheriff's office, the informant was introduced to him as a person who desired work as a confidential informant. The informant contacted Agent Collins several months later, and advised Agent Collins that he (the informant) understood that Lee was in possession of drugs. Subsequently, Agent Collins supplied the informant with money to make drug purchases from Lee. Agent Collins searched the informant before each purchase, drove the informant to Lee's house where the purchases took place, and received the evidence from the informant after each purchase. On each occasion, the informant was paid $25.00 by FDLE. According to Agent Collins, these drug purchases were not reverse sting operations, i.e.,'the drugs purchased by the informant from Lee belonged to Lee and not to the FDLE.
Testimony at the hearing on Lee's motion to dismiss reflects that shortly after the two purchases from Lee, the informant was placed on a weekly salary. Agent Collins was aware that the informant had a record of numerous convictions, including a conviction for perjury. The informant had at least four aliases, and his only sources of income during the time period relevant to this case were payments from FDLE and money received from the sale of items he had stolen.
On February 20, 1985, Lee entered a negotiated plea of nolo contendere to the Count I charge of possession of a controlled substance. The plea agreement provided that:
(1) The defendant reserves his right to appeal the denial of defendant's motion to dismiss for improper governmental conduct.
(2) The State will recommend probation.
(3) The State will remain silent as to the withholding of adjudication of guilt.
(4) The State will enter a nolle prosequi to Counts II, III and IV of the information.
On March 13, 1985, Lee filed a motion to withdraw his plea of nolo contendere, alleging that the state had violated the plea agreement. The basis of the allegation was that FDLE Agent Collins, in a Presen-tence Investigation Report interview, recommended incarceration of Lee'for the alleged offense. Lee's attorney had deposed Agent Collins a short time before. At that time, Agent Collins represented that FDLE did not consider Lee a major drug dealer.
On April 1, 1985, Lee was adjudicated guilty of possession of a controlled substance. He was placed on three years probation, and ordered to serve 60 days in a Department of Corrections institution.
With regard to the due process issue, Lee contends that the factual situation of this case brings it within the rulings of State v. Glosson, 462 So.2d 1082 (Fla.1985) and Williamson v. United States, 311 F.2d 441 (5th Cir.1962), which expressly disapproved contingent fee agreements against particular defendants as to crimes not yet committed. Lee places special reliance on this court's opinion in State v. Glosson, 441 So.2d 1178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), subsequently approved by the Florida Supreme Court. In State v. Glosson this court found that conduct by the state, through the machinations of its paid informant, was "more akin to the manufacturing of criminal activity . [than to a] situation where the state merely seeks evidence of criminal activity." The court expressed its disapproval of state orchestration of criminal activity, for it deprives defendants of due process. Id., 1179.
While the circumstances of the instant case are somewhat similar to those of Glosson, there are some rather significant differences. In Glosson, the defendants were targeted by law enforcement; the informant had an oral agreement with the Levy County Sheriff — which agreement was carried out under the supervision of the State's Attorney; the informant's fee was contingent upon his cooperation and testimony in the criminal prosecution; and the criminal activity involved a "reverse-sting" operation in that trafficking charges were made on the basis of cannabis controlled by the Levy County Sheriff's Department. In the instant case, however, Lee was targeted by the informant rather than being named by an agent of the state; the State Attorney's office was not involved in the operation and did not supervise the informant in any way; the drugs sold by Lee were owned by him; and although the informant was paid after each purchase, his fee was not contingent upon a successful prosecution. We conclude, therefore, that the facts of this case do not rise to that level of state involvement which in Glosson constituted a violation of constitutional due process, and affirm the trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss.
As second point for review, Lee alleges the state breached the plea agreement because in the Presentence Investigation report, FDLE Agent Collins recommended incarceration although the plea agreement provided that the state would recommend probation. The state relies on Wood v. State, 346 So.2d 143 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), to support its contention that Agent Collins' comments did not constitute a violation of the plea agreement on the part of the state, since tha assistant state attorney, and not Agent Collins, was the spokesman for the state. In Wood v. State the appellant had entered a plea of nolo conten-dere to a charge of possession of marijuana in return for the state's agreement to remain mute at sentencing. In the Presen-tence Investigation report in Wood, as in the instant case, an officer on narcotics task force recommended incarceration. Because the assistant state attorney remained mute at sentencing, the trial court ruled there had been no violation of the plea agreement. This court affirmed, saying:
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. Id., 144.
We consider the Wood decision dispositive of the issue, and affirm the trial court's denial of Lee's motion to withdraw plea.
Nevertheless, we recognize that our decision today and this court's earlier decision in Wood v. State, 346 So.2d 143 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), is in conflict with the Fourth District's decision in Fortini v. State, 472 So.2d 1383 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Therefore, pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(a)(2)(A)(iv), we certify the following question:
WHEN A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER MAKES AN INDEPENDENT RECOMMENDATION TO THE TRIAL COURT THAT RUNS COUNTER TO THE RECOMMENDATION IN A PLEA AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE "STATE," MUST THE TRIAL COURT PERMIT A WITHDRAWAL OF THE PLEA?
AFFIRMED.
BARFIELD, J., concurs.
ERVIN, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with opinion.