113 So. 3d 31
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- LaFave, a teacher, faced two Hillsborough County counts of lewd or lascivious battery; Marion County charges were dropped after Hillsborough disposition.
- She pled guilty in 2005 under a negotiated plea for a downward departure, receiving three years of community control and seven years of sex offender probation, with a no early termination clause.
- The plea required LaFave to serve the sentence and not seek early termination; the circuit court accepted the plea and ratified the agreement.
- Six years into the ten-year nonprison term, LaFave moved for early termination of probation contrary to the plea; the circuit court granted the motion over objections.
- The State petitioned for certiorari relief, arguing the circuit court departed from the plea agreement and violated essential legal requirements; the circuit court’s order was entered October 5, 2011.
- This Court granted the petition to correct a gross miscarriage of justice and remand to reinstate probation under the plea terms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can the State seek certiorari review without a statutory right to appeal? | State argues certiorari is available under existing precedent for exceptional review. | LaFave argues no statutory right to appeal exists and certiorari is limited or unavailable. | Yes, in this rare instance the State may seek certiorari to correct a plea-departure violation. |
| Did the circuit court depart from the plea agreement by terminating probation early? | State contends the court’s action violated the negotiated no-early-termination clause. | LaFave contends the court could terminate under section 948.05 and that the clause was not enforceable. | Yes, the court abused its power by violating the negotiated plea and terminating probation. |
| Is the “no early termination” provision enforceable against LaFave? | LaFave argues the provision is invalid or unenforceable as a matter of law. | The provision is enforceable as part of the plea bargain; LaFave waived the right to early termination. | |
| Does the separation of powers doctrine prevent the plea’s terms from limiting probation termination? | LaFave asserts the provision unduly restricts DOC and executive prerogatives. | No, the waiver is enforceable and does not violate separation of powers. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. McMahon, 94 So.3d 468 (Fla.2012), 94 So.3d 468 (Fla.2012) (statutory right of appeal governs State’s appellate options in criminal cases)
- State v. MacLeod, 600 So.2d 1096 (Fla.1992), 600 So.2d 1096 (Fla.1992) (defines narrow rights of State to appeal criminal orders)
- State v. Brooks, 890 So.2d 503 (Fla.2d DCA 2005), 890 So.2d 503 (Fla.2d DCA 2005) (upheld state’s right to appeal when a downward departure converted a prison sentence)
- Harris v. Harris, 136 So.2d 633 (Fla.1962), 136 So.2d 633 (Fla.1962) (statute governs direct appeals but does not bar certiorari review by district courts)
- Pettis v. State, 520 So.2d 250 (Fla.1988), 520 So.2d 250 (Fla.1988) (certiorari review available in limited extraordinary circumstances)
- Jones v. State, 477 So.2d 566 (Fla.1985), 477 So.2d 566 (Fla.1985) (limits and cautions on certiorari when no right of appeal exists; special concurrence noted narrow availability)
- G.P. v. State, 476 So.2d 1272 (Fla.1985), 476 So.2d 1272 (Fla.1985) (certiorari review contemplated when no appellate rights exist; distinguished later cases)
- C.C. v. State, 476 So.2d 144 (Fla.1985), 476 So.2d 144 (Fla.1985) (premised on limited certiorari principles in absence of direct appeal)
- Carson v. State, 37 So.3d 884 (Fla.1st DCA 2010), 37 So.3d 884 (Fla.1st DCA 2010) (plea bargains may include enforceable terms beyond standard sentencing; negotiated sentence may be protected from collateral attack)
- Swett v. State, 772 So.2d 48 (Fla.3d DCA 2000), 772 So.2d 48 (Fla.3d DCA 2000) (courts enforce plea terms; cannot relapse to attack negotiated sentence)
- Garcia v. State, 722 So.2d 905 (Fla.3d DCA 1998), 722 So.2d 905 (Fla.3d DCA 1998) (defendant may waive rights under contract; enforceability of plea terms)
- Arriaga v. State, 666 So.2d 949 (Fla.4th DCA 1996), 666 So.2d 949 (Fla.4th DCA 1996) (waiver of rights and DOC/probation dynamics in plea contexts)
- Carson, 37 So.3d at 886, 37 So.3d 884 (Fla.1st DCA 2010) (court may impose negotiated terms within statutory limits; cannot later overturn)
- Hashem v. State, 61 So.3d 1290 (Fla.3d DCA 2011), 61 So.3d 1290 (Fla.3d DCA 2011) (courts consider DOC’s time credits and plea intent to effectuate sentencing)
- Dellahoy v. State, 816 So.2d 1253 (Fla.5th DCA 2002), 816 So.2d 1253 (Fla.5th DCA 2002) (DOC credit effects on plea outcomes; enforce intent of plea)
- Williams v. Dep’t of Corr., 734 So.2d 1132 (Fla.3d DCA 1999), 734 So.2d 1132 (Fla.3d DCA 1999) (enforces plea intent and DOC’s role in sentencing)