Simplice v. State, 134 So. 3d 555

Simplice was convicted on four counts of robbery with a weapon and one count of grand theft; jury acquitted on four counts of aggravated assault and one of aggravated battery.
Before trial, the trial judge discussed penalties and offered Simplice a plea with a 15.25-year minimum (10-year mandatory) which was rejected; the State later offered 20 years with the same 10-year minimum.
At trial, after some witnesses testified, the judge again offered the same minimum sentence in exchange for a plea to move the case along, which Simplice rejected.
The court ultimately imposed four consecutive ten-year sentences for the robberies and a five-year concurrent sentence for grand theft (total 40 years), without explaining the large increase from prior offers.
The appellate court analyzed whether the sentence was vindictive, applying totality of the circumstances including whether the judge initiated plea discussions and whether the sentence disparity indicated vindictiveness.
The court found the first two circumstances present, creating a presumption of vindictiveness that the State failed to dispel, and vacated the sentences to remand for resentencing before a different judge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the post-plea discussions created vindictive sentencing	Simplice argues the judge initiated pleas and imposed a harsher sentence after trial.	State contends no vindictive intent; sentences are warranted by the convictions.	Presumption of vindictiveness established; remand for resentencing before a different judge.

Baxter v. State, 127 So.3d 726 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (vindictiveness standard; totality of circumstances for plea-related sentencing)
Wilson v. State, 845 So.2d 142 (Fla. 2003) (harsh sentence after trial; dependency on plea-related actions)
Rosado v. State, 129 So.3d 1104 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (presumption of vindictiveness when judge initiates plea discussions)