63 So. 3d 925
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Appellant Jerome Vardaman pleaded guilty to carjacking with a firearm, robbery with a firearm, and resisting arrest; he was sentenced as a youthful offender with various terms of prison and probation in 2002.
- Vardaman violated community control and was reinstated to probation in December 2006; in January 2008 he was arrested for possession of cocaine with intent to sell and possession of cannabis.
- Following the new drug arrests, a violation-of-probation (VOP) affidavit was filed; Vardaman moved to suppress, which the trial court denied after a hearing.
- Two status hearings in May 2008 involved the court offering a plea of concurrent eight-year prison terms with credit for four years; Vardaman rejected the offer.
- On May 8, 2008, after a final hearing, the trial court revoked probation and sentenced Vardaman to concurrent thirty-year prison terms on Counts I and II.
- Vardaman challenged the sentences as vindictive, arguing judicial involvement in plea negotiations followed by a harsher sentence violated due process; the issue was preserved on direct appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether suppression denial was error | Vardaman argues suppression ruling was improper. | State contends no error in denial of suppression. | No error; suppression denial affirmed. |
| Whether there is a presumption of judicial vindictiveness curing the VOP sentences | Totality of circumstances shows vindictiveness after plea discussions. | State rebuttal not shown; no presumption. | Rebuttable presumption of vindictiveness arose; state failed to rebut. |
| Whether resentencing before a different judge is proper remedy | Remand to a different judge for resentencing is appropriate. | State could seek resentencing by same judge if justified. | Remand for resentencing before a different judge. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. State, 845 So.2d 142 (Fla.2003) (recognizes presumption of vindictiveness for judicial plea-participation with no record support)
- Parker v. State, 977 So.2d 671 (Fla.4th DCA 2008) (vindictiveness reviewed de novo; totality approach)
- Mounds v. State, 849 So.2d 1170 (Fla.4th DCA 2003) (applies totality of circumstances; contrasts with Wilson in evaluating vindictiveness)
- State v. Warner, 762 So.2d 507 (Fla.2000) (limits judicial participation in plea negotiations to minimize coercion)
- Trotter v. State, 825 So.2d 362 (Fla.2002) (vindictiveness framework referenced in jurisprudence)