Flynn v. State
119 So. 3d 468
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant James Bernard Flynn pleaded no contest to burglary of a dwelling and grand theft; plea colloquy made no mention of furlough conditions and the written plea form was silent on furlough.
- After the court accepted the plea but before announcing sentence, Flynn’s counsel told the court the parties agreed Flynn could remain out until Monday before sentencing; the court agreed “subject to certain terms and conditions.”
- The court immediately pronounced two concurrent nine-year sentences, granted furlough, and ordered Flynn to surrender by a specified date; the court warned that failure to appear could result in vacating the agreed sentence and imposing maximums.
- Flynn failed to return from furlough; eleven years later the court vacated the nine-year sentences and imposed the maximum sentences for each charge.
- The State did not move to vacate Flynn’s plea and sentence under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.170(g) before imposing the longer sentences.
- The Fourth District granted the State’s rehearing, held that imposing longer sentences after the oral pronouncement violated double jeopardy because no 3.170(g) motion was filed and granted, and reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Flynn) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether imposing a longer sentence after Flynn’s failure to return from furlough violated double jeopardy | Flynn: Jeopardy attached at the oral pronouncement of sentence; increasing sentence after that is barred | State: Flynn agreed that failure to appear would allow a longer sentence (waiver) and therefore had no expectation of finality | The court held double jeopardy was violated because jeopardy attached at oral sentence and no Rule 3.170(g) motion to vacate plea/sentence was filed and granted |
| Whether Flynn waived double jeopardy by agreeing to furlough conditions after sentencing | Flynn: No valid waiver—furlough was not part of the plea colloquy or written plea | State: Waiver occurred by agreement to failure-to-appear provisions (citing Adams concurrence) | Court rejected waiver argument on these facts: furlough arose after plea acceptance and was not shown to be part of the plea agreement |
| Whether the State can argue lack of legitimate expectation of finality raised on rehearing | Flynn: N/A | State (on rehearing): No legitimate expectation of finality because Flynn agreed sentence could be increased for failing to surrender | Court declined to consider this DiFrancesco-based argument because it was not raised in the answer brief and cannot be raised first on rehearing |
| Whether a post-acceptance consent to furlough may modify the plea (open question) | Flynn: N/A | State: Did not press modification theory on appeal | Court: Did not decide whether post-pronouncement consent to furlough can modify the plea agreement (issue not raised below) |
Key Cases Cited
- Scott v. State, 937 So.2d 746 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (double jeopardy bars multiple punishments for same offense)
- Ingraham v. State, 842 So.2d 954 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (jeopardy attaches at oral pronouncement of sentence; sentence cannot be increased thereafter absent appropriate vacatur of plea/sentence)
- Adams v. State, 780 So.2d 955 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (furlough terms that are part of plea acceptance may affect analysis; discussion includes concurrence on waiver)
- Novaton v. State, 634 So.2d 607 (Fla. 1994) (written plea agreements may include implicit waivers of double jeopardy when negotiated for a specific sentence)
- West v. State, 758 So.2d 1232 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (similar treatment of plea-related waivers in written plea agreements)
- United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117 (U.S. 1980) (legitimate expectation of finality governs double jeopardy analysis for sentence increases)
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.