Defendant Jones and Defendant Barnes had plea agreements that were not followed by the judges at sentencing. They cannot fix this during their appeal. This is because they have to first try to withdraw their plea within 30 days of sentencing, which is risky. The rules about this are causing problems for defendants and their lawyers, and there may need to be changes to make things fairer. In 1996, the government passed a law that changed the rules for appealing sentences in criminal cases. Now, defendants have to ask the trial court to fix any mistakes in their sentence before they can appeal. This makes it harder for defendants to appeal their sentences if they didn’t raise the issue in the trial court. The law also says that if a defendant pleads guilty and the judge gives a harsher sentence than agreed upon, the defendant has to ask to withdraw the plea within 30 days. This means defendants have to be really careful about preserving their rights to appeal their sentences. The courts are trying to figure out how to apply new rules for plea agreements and sentencing. In one case, the court said a defendant could challenge a fine on appeal because the new rule wasn’t in place when he was sentenced. But in another case, the court said a defendant couldn’t challenge a sentence that didn’t follow the plea agreement because he didn’t ask to withdraw his plea. Other courts have made similar decisions, creating confusion. The court ruled that a defendant could not appeal a sentence that was longer than the plea agreement because they didn’t ask to withdraw the plea before appealing. The court said the defendant could try to get the sentence changed through a different legal process later on. In simple terms, the decision in Gafford requires a defendant to withdraw their guilty plea if the judge gives them a sentence that doesn’t match what they agreed to. But this is a problem for some defendants who have already paid fines or restitution, or who are happy with everything except one part of their sentence.
Instead of having to withdraw their plea, these defendants should be able to ask the judge to stick to the original agreement. This can be done through a different legal process called Rule 3.800(b) instead of Rule 3.170(l). This way, the defendant can try to fix the problem without having to go through the difficult process of withdrawing their plea.
Overall, the rules should allow defendants to address sentencing mistakes without having to give up their plea deals. The First DCA made a decision that puts the burden on defendants to raise issues about their sentence after their trial, which is hard for them because many don’t have a lawyer to help them. This means they might have to wait a long time to get any help. The decision is important for all trial courts in the state until it’s changed by a new rule or a different decision from a higher court. In order to raise an issue with their sentence on appeal, defendants need to make sure their lawyer tells the judge about the terms of their plea deal at their sentencing. If there’s a problem with the sentence, they have to decide if they want to try to withdraw their plea within 30 days after their sentencing. Gafford is a lawyer who thinks a rule in the court system is unfair and wants it changed. He suggests that sentences that don’t follow plea agreements should be able to be appealed without having to ask for a different remedy first. He also suggests changing a specific rule to make it easier to appeal when the state doesn’t stick to the plea agreement. Gafford is a lawyer who works for the Public Defenderâs Office and has a lot of experience in court.
Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/but-i-dont-want-to-withdraw-my-plea-the-expansive-view-of-rule-3-1701/
Leave a Reply