and SC14-1952 Jean Claude Noel v. State of Florida and Jean Claude Noel v. State of Florida, 191 So. 3d 370

Noel was convicted of conspiracy to commit racketeering and first-degree grand theft arising from a scheme to steal advance fees; sentenced to 10 years prison and 10 years probation.
At sentencing the court offered to mitigate the prison term to 8 years if Noel paid $20,000 restitution within 60 days; the written order reflected this conditional mitigation.
Noel did not pay within 60 days, the mitigation was not applied, and his counsel’s request for an extension was denied.
On appeal the Fourth District (en banc) upheld the sentence and certified conflict with the Fifth District’s decision in Nezi.
The Supreme Court of Florida granted review and held the conditional-mitigation provision unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause, quashing Noel and approving Nezi to the extent it found the sentencing condition unconstitutional.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether conditioning a shorter prison term on payment of restitution violates constitutional protections	Noel: conditioning mitigation on payment impermissibly lengthens sentence based on inability to pay; violates due process/equal protection	State: sentencing courts may consider financial resources and may incentivize restitution; statute §921.185 permits considering restitution as mitigation	Court: Such conditional mitigation is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment — it impermissibly deprives liberty based on inability to pay; Noel entitled to resentencing
Whether Bearden/Williams/Tate bar consideration of ability to pay at initial sentencing	Noel: those precedents prohibit imposing longer incarceration as substitute for monetary penalty	State: Bearden allows consideration of financial background at initial sentencing; Williams/Tate inapplicable because they addressed converting fines into incarceration	Court: Bearden permits limited consideration but does not authorize a sentence that effectively increases imprisonment solely because of indigency; due process analysis controls

Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (U.S. 1983) (probation revocation for nonpayment requires inquiry into willfulness and bona fide efforts; cannot imprison solely for inability to pay)
Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1970) (state may not extend imprisonment beyond statutory maximum because defendant cannot pay a fine)
Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395 (U.S. 1971) (states may not convert a fine into imprisonment solely because defendant is indigent)
Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (U.S. 1956) (equal protection requires that criminal proceedings not produce invidious discrimination based on wealth)
Nezi v. State, 119 So.3d 517 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (trial court violated constitutional protections by conditioning a lesser sentence on payment of restitution)