Simmons v. State
228 So. 3d 1181
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Simmons was charged with sale/delivery of a controlled substance within 1000 feet of a school (first-degree felony).
- He agreed to plead no contest to a lesser-included second-degree felony in exchange for a negotiated 36-month prison sentence (no minimum mandatory).
- The plea agreement included a warning that if Simmons failed to appear for sentencing, the deal would be off and the State could reinstate the original first-degree charge.
- Simmons failed to appear for his scheduled sentencing; he was arrested on a warrant and later sentenced by the trial court to 60 months in prison (credit for time served).
- Simmons appealed, arguing (1) the court improperly increased the negotiated sentence without allowing withdrawal of the plea, and (2) defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not objecting or moving to withdraw the plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Simmons) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could impose a greater sentence than the negotiated 36 months after Simmons failed to appear | Court erred by imposing 60 months rather than the negotiated 36 months | Plea was breached by failure to appear; negotiated sentence was not enforceable | Affirmed: because Simmons breached the plea and did not move to withdraw, he is not entitled to the negotiated 36 months |
| Whether the trial court was required to offer Simmons an opportunity to withdraw his plea before imposing a higher sentence | Court should have given an opportunity to withdraw before exceeding the agreed sentence | The agreement did not allow the court to treat the plea as an open plea; but the State did not reinstate the original first-degree charge and sentencing discretion applied | Court can alter plea-based expectations only if defendant is allowed to withdraw; issue not preserved because Simmons did not move to withdraw his plea |
| Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object or move to withdraw the plea | Counsel's failures were ineffective on the face of the record and prejudiced Simmons | Counsel may have made a tactical choice to avoid reinstatement of a much harsher charge; record does not show clear ineffectiveness | No ineffective assistance on the face of the record; tactical reasons plausible, so claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Quarterman v. State, 527 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 1988) (describes consequences when defendant fails to appear for sentencing under plea deals)
- Neeld v. State, 977 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (distinguishes Quarterman-style agreements from typical plea limitations)
- Henson v. State, 977 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (trial court cannot treat a non-Quarterman plea as an open plea after defendant fails to appear)
- Rollman v. State, 887 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 2004) (trial court may alter a plea arrangement before sentencing only if defendant is allowed to withdraw plea)
- McClough v. State, 74 So. 3d 158 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (defendant must move to withdraw plea to preserve challenge to sentencing after plea breach)
- Lowery v. State, 22 So. 3d 745 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (example of ineffective assistance when counsel agrees with erroneous plea recollection)
- Williamson v. State, 974 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (counsel tactical decisions can justify not seeking plea withdrawal)