Charles v. State
204 So. 3d 63
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2016Background
- Futo Charles was indicted with co-defendants for membership in the "Top 6" gang and related offenses; he initially cooperated with law enforcement and two plea offers (8 and 15 years) were rejected by Judge Miller.
- At a change-of-plea hearing the lead investigator and the State urged acceptance of the 15-year plea so Charles could continue cooperating; the court refused.
- After a two-week jury trial Charles was convicted of racketeering, conspiracy to commit racketeering, possession of MDMA, and possession of marijuana; he was acquitted of firearm-related predicate offenses.
- The lowest permissible sentence on the scoresheet was ~79.8 months; the State then requested the statutory maximum and urged the court to "send a clear message" to the community.
- Without stated reasons, the trial court imposed consecutive sentences totaling nearly 66 years (within CPC statutory limits).
- On rehearing the appellate majority affirmed, holding (1) no record evidence the judge relied on the State’s "send a message" plea, and (2) general deterrence is a permissible sentencing consideration under the CPC when a sentence is within statutory limits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Charles) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion in rejecting plea offers | Court erred by rejecting plea deals and later imposing harsher sentence after cooperation | Judge properly rejected pleas; no abuse of discretion shown | Rejection of plea deals not an abuse; convictions and plea rejections stand |
| Whether the imposed sentence was based on impermissible "send a message" / general deterrence | Sentence presumptively based on improper general-deterrence motive (given State’s argument and judge’s silence) | Even if deterrence was urged, deterrence is a valid sentencing purpose under the CPC | No evidence the judge relied on impermissible factors; deterrence is permissible; affirmed |
| Whether a within-guidelines sentence is reviewable when allegedly motivated by improper considerations | Appellant contends appellate review is warranted because totality of circumstances raises presumption of improper motive that State failed to rebut | State argues sentence fell within statutory limits and is not reviewable absent constitutional violation | Court applied de novo review but found no constitutional violation; sentence upheld |
| Whether general deterrence is a proper sentencing factor under the Criminal Punishment Code | General deterrence is not listed in CPC and should not be used to increase an individual’s sentence | CPC’s primary purpose is punishment; deterrence is a traditional and legitimate aim of punishment and may inform sentencing | Court holds deterrence (including "send a message") is a legitimate sentencing consideration under the CPC when sentence is within statutory limits |
Key Cases Cited
- Norvil v. State, 191 So.3d 406 (Fla. 2016) (CPC enumerates factors a trial court may consider; limits on permissible factors)
- Howard v. State, 820 So.2d 337 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (within statutory limits, sentences generally not subject to appellate review)
- Seays v. State, 789 So.2d 1209 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (reliance on impermissible factors at sentencing violates due process)
- Cromartie v. State, 70 So.3d 559 (Fla. 2011) (standard of review for sentencing issues)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (permissible judicial consideration of offense/offender factors when imposing sentence within statutory range)
- Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983) (deference to legislative authority on punishment limits)
- Alfonso-Roche v. State, 199 So.3d 941 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (examples of constitutional sentencing violations and burdens when improper factors are alleged)