Darrick L. McFadden v. State of Florida
177 So. 3d 562
| Fla. | 2015Background
- In 2008 McFadden was convicted of two counts of second-degree murder and two counts of robbery with a firearm; he received a 55-year sentence.
- In 2011 the State moved under §921.186 (substantial assistance) to reduce or suspend McFadden’s sentence because he cooperated against codefendant Carlos McSwain.
- The State asserted McFadden’s cooperation was necessary: without his agreement, deposition, and readiness to testify, it would have had to nolle prosse charges against McSwain; McSwain ultimately pled no contest to two counts of manslaughter and received ten years.
- At the §921.186 hearing the prosecutor recommended reduction/suspension but made no binding promise; the trial court denied the motion, voicing policy objections to the statute and questioning whether McFadden had actually provided substantial assistance.
- McFadden appealed; the Second District held such denials are reviewable when a misapplication of the statute is alleged and certified conflict with the First District’s decision in Cooper, which held denials are not appealable.
- The Supreme Court of Florida granted review to decide whether orders denying §921.186 motions are appealable and whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying relief to McFadden.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an order denying a §921.186 motion is appealable | McFadden: denial is an order entered after final judgment and appealable under Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(b)(1)(D) | State/Cooper: such orders are not appealable | Court: Denials are appealable final orders under rule 9.140(b)(1)(D); Cooper disapproved |
| Standard of review for the legal question of appealability | McFadden: question of law warrants de novo review | State: (implicit) limited review; jurisdictional defense | Court: de novo review applies (pure question of law) |
| Whether McFadden provided substantial assistance under §921.186 | McFadden: his cooperation produced the plea and was essential to prosecuting McSwain | State: agreed he provided substantial assistance and recommended relief; also argued trial court properly exercised discretion | Court: Record shows McFadden rendered substantial assistance (but statute leaves relief discretionary) |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying relief | McFadden: denial was based on improper factors (policy hostility, speculation about future plea withdrawal, prior refusal to help) | State: trial court acted within discretion (implicit) | Court: Trial court abused discretion by relying on improper considerations and hostility to the statute; remand for proceedings consistent with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Cooper v. State, 106 So. 3d 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (held orders denying §921.186 motions not appealable; disapproved)
- State v. Robinson, 873 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 2004) (district court jurisdiction to review certain post-judgment criminal orders)
- State v. Schultz, 720 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 1998) (order withholding adjudication found appealable)
- Keck v. Eminisor, 104 So. 3d 359 (Fla. 2012) (de novo review for pure questions of law)
- Gonzalez v. State, 990 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 2008) (abuse of discretion standard explained)