Opinion ID: 1831943
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: application of the totality of the circumstances analysis to byrd and wilson

Text: Because Byrd involves a trial judge who participated in the plea discussions, the first factor to consider is whether the judge complied with the requirements of Warner. The record in this case indicates that the trial judge did not initiate the plea discussions, but simply responded to a question from Byrd about a possible plea. However, we conclude, as did the Fifth District, that the trial judge exceeded the limits of Warner by both urging Byrd to accept the plea offer of thirty years and stating that if Byrd chose to go to trial he certainly would not get that low. See Byrd, 794 So.2d at 672. These comments implied that the sentence imposed would hinge on future procedural choices, specifically Byrd's exercise of his right to trial. Further, there is an extremely large disparity between the offered thirty-year sentence and the seventy-five year sentence imposed. See id. Finally, the Fifth District's opinion indicates that the trial judge had shown no reason why its pre-trial evaluation of the appropriate sentence... was in error. Id. at 673. These factors, taken together under a totality of the circumstances analysis, give rise to a presumption of judicial vindictiveness that the State failed to rebut. Turning to Wilson, this case involves a violation of probation where the trial judge offered to sentence Wilson to 128 months if he pled guilty. When Wilson indicated that he wanted to put on testimony from his fiancée before the judge imposed sentence, the trial judge withdrew the offer. Subsequently, the trial judge commented before the start of the revocation hearing, that the court's offer was the bottom of the guidelines and in my opinion you should have taken it. Wilson, 792 So.2d at 602. This comment indicates that the judge may have unintentionally stepped outside the bounds of Warner and departed from the role as a neutral arbiter. This comment also implies that the judge had already decided that Wilson was not going to receive the bottom of the guideline sentence previously offered no matter what occurred during the hearing, and that Wilson would be penalized for exercising his right to a hearing on his violation of probation charge. This implication is heightened by the fact that immediately after the hearing, which was held shortly after the plea discussions, the judge imposed a 150-month sentence without explanation. Moreover, the record lacks any facts that explain the increased sentence. In Wilson's case, it is not simply the increased sentence that gives rise to an unrebutted presumption of vindictiveness. Rather, it is the judge's comment that Wilson should have accepted the offer, coupled with the increased sentence imposed shortly thereafter, and the absence of any explanation for the increase that give rise to the unrebutted presumption of vindictiveness.