Case Name: Morris HARRIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2002-04-26
Citations: 879 So. 2d 1223
Docket Number: Nos. 1D00-3775, 1D00-4749
Parties: Morris HARRIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: BENTON, J., concurs with opinion. POLSTON, J., dissents with opinion.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 879
Pages: 1223–1237

Head Matter:
Morris HARRIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Nos. 1D00-3775, 1D00-4749.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
April 26, 2002.
Opinions on Denial of Rehearing Oct. 4, 2002.
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, Robert S. Friedman, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Thomas H. Duffy, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Opinion:
ERVIN, J.
These consolidated appeals raise various issues resulting from appellant's involuntary civil commitment as a sexually violent predator pursuant to the Jimmy Ryce Act (sections 394.910-931, Florida Statutes (1999)). Case number 00-3775 is an appeal from a final order of involuntary commitment, and case number 00-4749 is an appeal from a post-judgment order denying appellant's motion to enforce. Because we reverse and remand on an issue which is common to both appeals, urging that the lower court erred in denying appellant's motion to enforce his plea agreement, we do not address the remaining points raised in these consolidated cases.
In the appeal from the order denying the motion to enforce the plea agreement and sentence, Harris claims the state breached the agreement after he had served practically all of the agreed-upon sentence, by filing a petition requesting that he be declared a sexually violent predator and civilly committed. Because we agree that the lower court erred in refusing to enforce the plea agreement, which was binding on both parties, we reverse the order of denial and remand the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The plea agreement that Harris and the state entered into in 1995 provided that he would be sentenced to a term of 15 years' imprisonment for the offense of committing a lewd and lascivious act on a child under the age of 16 years, and, at the conclusion of seven years' incarceration, the remainder of the sentence would be suspended and he would be placed on probation with the special condition that he complete a sex offender treatment program. He alleged that the state violated the contract in that on May 27, 1999, four days before his tentative release date from prison, it filed a petition seeking his civil commitment under the Ryce Act. The lower court denied the motion to enforce, ruling that the state had not reneged on its earlier promises because at the time of the agreement in 1995, the Ryce Act had not yet been enacted into law; the civil commitment was an unforeseen, collateral consequence of the crime; and because the court found appellant was serving probation while awaiting trial in the civil proceeding. Shortly after the entry of this order, the case proceeded to nonjury trial, and after presentation of the evidence, the judge found by clear and convincing evidence that appellant was a sexually violent predator requiring civil commitment. Harris thereafter filed his appeal from the order denying enforcement of the plea agreement and the order civilly committing him.
Florida courts have routinely held that a defendant who was not informed that he was subject to civil commitment under the Ryce Act is not entitled to withdraw a guilty or nolo contendere plea to a charged offense on the ground that the plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered, because such commitment is deemed a collateral, not a direct consequence, of the plea. See, e.g., Nelson v. State, 780 So.2d 294 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Donovan v. State, 773 So.2d 1264 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Pearman v. State, 764 So.2d 739 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Oce v. State, 742 So.2d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), cause dismissed, 763 So.2d 1044 (Fla.2000); LaMonica v. State, 732 So.2d 1175 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Burkett v. State, 731 So.2d 695 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Collie v. State, 710 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Benitez v. State, 667 So.2d 476 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). The case at bar, however, does not involve the issue of the voluntariness of Harris's plea. Rather, appellant asserts that the state breached the plea agreement, thereby requiring either that the agreement be specifically enforced, or that he be allowed to withdraw his plea and proceed to trial.
A case which is perhaps the most factually similar to that at bar is Acosta v. State, 784 So.2d 1137 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), involving the Third District's per curiam denial of Acosta's petition for writ of cer-tiorari. As did Harris below, Acosta filed a motion for enforcement of the plea agreement, complaining that the state had reneged on its contractual obligation. The trial court denied the motion for the rea son that commitment under the Ryce Act is civil rather than criminal. Acosta then sought certiorari review of the order. Although the majority's reasoning for its denial in Acosta is not set out, Judge Ramirez, in his concurring opinion, explained that Acosta argued that the state had violated the plea agreement by bringing a civil action against him, and Acosta had relied upon a case which involved a civil forfeiture proceeding. Judge Ramirez pointed out that the case Acosta cited was distinguishable, because the forfeiture provision was a significant factor in the defendant's plea agreement, while the Jimmy Ryce Act was not even enacted until years after Acosta's plea, and, therefore, could not have been within the parties' contemplation when they agreed on the terms of the plea.
In that the Third District did not explain its rationale, other than in Judge Ramirez's concurring opinion, the Acosta decision cannot be considered even persuasive authority. Moreover, the fact that neither of the parties in the case at bar contemplated the subsequent passage of the Ryce Act at the time the agreement was struck in 1995, does not relieve the state of its obligation to comply with the terms of its contract, as Judge Ramirez suggests.
We likewise find Murray v. Kearney, 770 So.2d 273 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (on reh'g), review granted, 791 So.2d 1100 (Fla.2001), is distinguishable because it is in a substantially different procedural position than the present case. In Murray, the defendant sought specific performance of the plea agreement before the trial court after his civil commitment as a sexually violent predator. When the motion was denied, he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Fourth District Court of Appeal. In denying the petition, the court noted at the outset that its "habeas jurisdiction is limited to determining whether the challenged order was entered without jurisdiction or is illegal." Id. at 274. The court observed that the civil commitment was legal because the trial court clearly had jurisdiction to entertain civil commitment proceedings under the Ryce Act, and it noted that Harris had "raised no argument that his confinement violates the requirements of the act under which his confinement was obtained." Id. at 275 (footnote omitted).
Unlike Harris, the petitioner in Murray did not raise the issue before the trial court of whether the state had violated its plea agreement; instead, he argued that the commitment was illegal, because it violated the plea agreement. Nevertheless, the court specifically noted that even if the state violated the plea agreement by bringing a civil commitment action against Murray, such facts still would not make the civil commitment order illegal, because Murray qualified as a sexually violent predator under the Ryce Act. Id. In contrast to Murray, Harris raised the issue that the state violated the plea agreement in the Ryce Act proceeding and the criminal proceeding, and is directly appealing the court's rulings in both proceedings. Because he timely raised this issue before the trial court, he is entitled to review of the question whether civil commitment violates the terms of the plea agreement, which was not decided in Murray.
Insofar as the issue of whether the state can be regarded as breaching its agreement, we consider it immaterial that one's confinement under the Ryce Act has been held a collateral, rather than a direct consequence, of a defendant's plea. Harris bargained for and was led to believe that in exchange for his agreement to surrender certain rights, most notably, that of trial by jury, he would receive a fifteen-year sentence, and, after service of seven years, the remaining portion of the sentence would be suspended and served on probation, during which time he would receive treatment as a sex offender. By pursuing civil commitment under the Ryce Act, the state has breached the plea agreement in regard to the terms of the sentence.
In our judgment, this is a classic case for the application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel, the elements of which are (1) a representation as to a material fact that is contrary to a later-asserted position; (2) reliance on that representation; and (3) a change in position detrimental to the party claiming estoppel, caused by the representation and reliance thereon. See Dep't of Revenue v. Anderson, 403 So.2d 397, 400 (Fla.1981); Mandarin Paint & Flooring, Inc. v. Potura Coatings of Jacksonville, Inc., 744 So.2d 482, 485 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Elements one and two of the doctrine are easily satisfied in that the state clearly represented to Harris the sentence he would receive in exchange for his plea, and he relied on the representation.
As to the third element, we consider that the state subsequently changed its position in a manner detrimental to Harris by filing the civil commitment action against him. Although a court of equity will not demand that a contract be specifically enforced against a party who, due to future circumstances, is unable to comply with the agreement, compare Standard Lumber Co. v. Florida Industrial Co., 106 Fla. 884, 141 So. 729 (1932), we note that the legislature's later passage of the Ryce Act did not render the state's future compliance with the agreement impossible. The state attorney was given the discretion whether to file a civil commitment action against Harris. Section 394.914, Florida Statutes (1999), provides: "Following receipt of the written assessment and recommendation from the multidisciplinary team, the state attorney, in accordance with s. 394.913, may file a petition with the circuit court alleging that the person is a sexually violent predator and stating facts sufficient to support such allegation." (Emphasis added.) As a result, the state attorney was clearly under no compulsion to file a petition to seek civil commitment against Harris. In so acting, it violated its own solemn agreement that appellant serve no more than a split sentence of incarceration and probation.
Nothing less than specific performance of the contract can accord Harris justice. As the United States Supreme Court noted in Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971):
This phase of the process of criminal justice [the plea proceeding], and the adjudicative element inherent in accepting a plea of guilty, must be attended by safeguards to insure the defendant what is reasonably due in the circumstances. Those circumstances will vary, but a constant factor is that when a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled.
Justice Douglas specially concurred, making the following observations:
Where the "plea bargain" is not kept by the prosecutor, the sentence must be vacated and the state court will decide in light of the circumstances of each case whether due process requires (a) that there be specific performance of the plea bargain or (b) that the defendant be given the option to go to trial on the original charges. One alternative may do justice in one case, and the other in a different case. In choosing a remedy, however, a court ought to accord a defendant's preference considerable, if not controlling, weight inasmuch as the fundamental rights flouted by a prosecutor's breach of a plea bargain are those of the defendant, not of the State.
Id. at 267, 92 S.Ct. 495.
Santobello involved the violation of a plea agreement wherein the prosecutor agreed that he would make no recommendation to the trial court as to a particular sentence. A different prosecutor later breached the agreement by recommending the maximum sentence. The Supreme Court, by assuming jurisdiction over the case, considered the breach a violation of the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury, or the " 'right not to plead guilty.' " Id. (Marshall, J., concurring and dissenting) (citation omitted).
Florida's appellate courts have followed the recommendations of Justice Douglas in Santobello; some cases permitting, under the particular circumstances, withdrawal of the plea, and others, specific performance. In Hunt v. State, 613 So.2d 893, 898 (Fla.1992), the court commented, relying on Santobello, that if the state breaches the terms of a plea agreement, a defendant is entitled to either specific performance of the agreement or withdrawal of the plea. The court continued that it considered specific performance necessary in the case before it in order to do justice. Id. Accord Eulo v. State, 786 So.2d 43 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Espinosa v. State, 688 So.2d 1016 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Buffa v. State, 641 So.2d 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Spencer v. State, 623 So.2d 1211 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).
In the case at bar, specific performance of the plea agreement is the only effective means of carrying out the agreement. Permitting Harris the option of withdrawing his plea after serving nearly the entire incarcerative portion of his sentence is obviously an unjust remedy, and one, moreover, which he does not seek.
In our opinion, the state breached its plea agreement to allow Harris the privilege of seeking treatment as a sexual offender during the probationary period of his sentence by seeking civil commitment shortly before he had completed the incar-cerative portion of his sentence. Because, however, the issue we decide appears to bfe one of first impression, and other courts have reached a different result on somewhat analogous facts, we certify to the Florida Supreme Court the following question to be of great public importance:
MAY THE STATE INITIATE DISCRETIONARY CIVIL COMMITMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE RYCE ACT (PART V OF CHAPTER 394, FLORIDA STATUTES) WHERE, BY SEEKING CIVIL COMMITMENT, THE STATE WOULD VIOLATE THE TERMS OF A PLEA AGREEMENT PREVIOUSLY ENTERED INTO WITH THE DEFENDANT?
The post-judgment order denying appellant's motion to enforce the plea agreement and sentence in case number 00-4749 is REVERSED and REMANDED with directions that the court specifically enforce the parties' plea agreement. Based upon this disposition, the final civil commitment order in case number 00-3775 is also REVERSED and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this' decision.
BENTON, J., concurs with opinion. POLSTON, J., dissents with opinion.
. This is appellant's second appearance before this court in case number 00-3775. In Harris v. State, 766 So.2d 1239 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), Harris sought common law certiorari review of an order denying his motion to dismiss the state's petition to commit him as a sexually violent predator on the ground, among other things, that the proceedings violated the terms of his prior plea agreement. The court denied the petition without prejudice to Harris's right to raise (he issue in an appeal from the final commitment order, which has now been entered.
. This offense is a second-degree felony, a violation of section 800.04(1), Florida Statutes (1995).
. The Act became effective as of January 1, 1999. See Ch. 98-64, § 24, at 455, Laws of Fla.
. Because the state essentially conceded during oral argument that the last finding was incorrect, in that it acknowledges that appellant's probationary term will not commence until appellant is released from confinement as a sexually violent predator, we will not further address this finding in our opinion.
. For the same reason, a number of out-of-state cases relied upon by the state for affir-mance are similarly distinguishable. See Martin v. Reinstein, 195 Ariz. 293, 987 P.2d 779 (Ct.App.1999); In re Hay, 263 Kan. 822, 953 P.2d 666 (1998); In re Ashman, 608 N.W.2d 853 (Minn.2000); State v. Zanelli, 212 Wis.2d 358, 569 N.W.2d 301 (Ct.App.1997).
. The Fourth District has stated that "[t]he determination of whether a consequence of a plea is direct or collateral 'turns on whether the result represents a definite, immediate and largely automatic effect on the range of the defendant's punishment.'" Pearman v. State, 764 So.2d 739, 741 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (quoting Zambuto v. State, 413 So.2d 461 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)).
. See In re Bailey, 317 Ill.App.3d 1072, 251 Ill.Dec. 575, 740 N.E.2d 1146, 1153 (2000); In re Kunshier, 521 N.W.2d 880, 885-86 (Minn.Ct.App.1994); In re Blodgett, 490 N.W.2d 638, 647 (Minn.Ct.App.1992); In re Detention of Campbell, 139 Wash.2d 341, 986 P.2d 771, 780-81 (1999) (en banc), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1125, 121 S.Ct. 880, 148 L.Ed.2d 789 (2001).