Opinion ID: 1831943
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Wilson v. State

Text: In Wilson, the State alleged that Wilson violated his community control. See 792 So.2d at 601. At his final hearing, Wilson indicated that he wished to enter an open plea and admission to the violation. See id. at 601. The following exchange then occurred: THE COURT: Has anyone promised you anything other than the fact [the] court would revoke your probation, adjudicate you guilty if you haven't been previously adjudicated guilty, sentences you to 128 months Florida state prison with credit for time served. Do you understand that? [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, before you pronounce sentence, I would like the court to hear from Mr. Wilson and hear from his fiancé. THE COURT: What is the purpose of that since this is the bottom of the guidelines and I can't go any lower than the bottom? [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Well, your Honor, what we would be asking, for you to reinstate Mr. Wilson. THE COURT: I thought there was an agreement. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: It's an open plea, your Honor. THE COURT: No. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: He still wants to admit to the violation. THE COURT: No. Go to a final hearing. Set it down for a final hearing. Let's proceed. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Could I have a moment, your Honor? THE COURT: That's all right. Court withdraws the offer.    [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Good morning again. Emilio Benitez on behalf of Mr. Wilson on page 3 [of the court's docket]. THE COURT: Are you ready to proceed to final hearing? [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Yes, your honor. Before that, I'd like to address Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson, that's what you want to do? You want to go to a final hearing; is that correct? [WILSON]: Yes, sir. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: You don't want to accept the court's offer of 128 months; is that correct? [WILSON]: No. THE COURT: And my advice to you was the court's offer was the bottom of the guidelines and in my opinion you should have taken it. Is that [WILSON]: Excuse me? THE COURT: Okay. Let's proceed. Let's swear in the defendant. Id. (alterations in the original) (emphasis supplied). At the end of the hearing, the trial judge found that Wilson wilfully violated his community control and sentenced him to a mid-range guideline sentence of 150 months in prison. See id. On direct appeal, the Fourth District held that the case should be remanded for resentencing as a result of our decision in Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000), [2] but rejected Wilson's argument that his original sentence was vindictive and, therefore, he should, on remand, be resentenced by a different trial judge. Wilson, 792 So.2d at 603. The Fourth District acknowledged that [a] defendant may not be subjected to a more severe punishment for exercising his constitutional right to stand trial. Id. However, the Fourth District also referred to its earlier decision in Mitchell v. State, 521 So.2d 185 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), where it had previously explained: Absent a demonstration by the defendant of judicial vindictiveness or punitive action, a defendant may not complain simply because he received a heavier sentence after trial. A disparity between the sentence received and the earlier offer will not alone support a finding of vindictiveness.... Having rejected the offer of a lesser sentence, [the defendant] assumes the risk of receiving a harsher sentence. Were it otherwise, plea bargaining would be futile. Wilson, 792 So.2d at 603 (quoting Mitchell, 521 So.2d at 190) (alterations in the original). Based on Mitchell and the facts in Wilson's case, the Fourth District concluded that a presumption of vindictiveness did not arise: Here, the plea offer was given and was voluntarily rejected. The trial judge made no remarks which would give any indication that the harsher sentence was being imposed as a punitive measure for rejecting the previous offer. Although the judge reiterated the plea offer at the start of the hearing, he did not refer to it again at sentencing, or even at the resentencing. Wilson, 792 So.2d at 603.