Repentance is the act of showing remorse for doing something wrong. In the criminal justice system, a defendant may be offered a plea deal to resolve their case without a trial. If the defendant rejects the plea deal and goes to trial, they may receive a harsher sentence if found guilty. However, they cannot be punished for choosing to have a trial instead of accepting a plea deal. In simple terms, if a defendant chooses to go to trial rather than accept a plea offer, they can’t complain if they get a longer sentence. The court will look at whether the sentence is fair for the crime, regardless of how the defendant’s guilt was determined. The Florida Supreme Court has set guidelines for how judges can negotiate plea deals with defendants, including not pressuring them to accept a plea deal. The judge’s initial evaluation of the case is not final, and can change based on new information. In two cases, the trial judges got frustrated with the defendants for not taking plea deals and made comments that suggested they were giving harsher sentences out of frustration. This led to the appellate courts ordering new sentencing hearings with different judges. In some cases, courts have issued harsher sentences to defendants who go to trial instead of accepting a plea deal, claiming that it shows a lack of remorse. However, the right to a trial by jury is more important than the idea of showing remorse. In a similar case, a defendant’s sentence was overturned because the judge said the sentence would have been more lenient if the defendant had accepted responsibility and pleaded guilty instead of going to trial. When a judge is involved in plea negotiations and then imposes a harsher sentence, it may be considered vindictive. But some courts say there must be proof of actual vindictiveness, not just a difference between the sentence and a plea offer. In one case, a defendant was offered a 128-month sentence in exchange for admitting to a violation of probation, but he went to trial and got 150 months instead. The court said there was no proof the harsher sentence was meant as punishment for rejecting the offer. In some places, there is a rule that if you turn down a plea deal and then get a longer sentence, the judge has to explain why the sentence is longer. This is to make sure the judge isn’t punishing you for not taking the deal. In one case, a person turned down a 30-year offer and got a 75-year sentence. The higher court said the judge didn’t explain why the sentence was longer and told the judge to give the person the 30-year sentence. In another case, someone turned down a one-year offer and got nine years instead. The higher court said the judge didn’t explain why the sentence was so much longer and told the judge to give the person a sentence within the range of five and a half to seven years. In some court cases, judges tried to pressure defendants into accepting plea deals by offering them shorter sentences. When the defendants refused and were later found guilty, the judges gave them much harsher sentences. In these cases, the appeals courts ruled that the judges had to stick to their original offers. If a defendant turns down a plea offer and then gets a harsher sentence after trial, it could be seen as unfair. But sometimes, new information that comes out after the plea offer can justify a longer sentence. For example, if the judge learns more about the defendant’s past record or the crime they’re accused of, they might decide on a tougher sentence after the initial offer is rejected. If a defendant rejects a plea offer from the state and ultimately receives a higher sentence from the judge, it is not necessarily considered vindictive. The judge is allowed to impose a sentence that exceeds the state’s offer without being accused of vindictiveness, as long as the judge did not participate in the plea negotiations and there is no evidence of actual vindictiveness. This was shown in cases like Martin v. State and Richardson v. State, where the defendants rejected plea offers and received higher sentences, but the courts affirmed the sentences because there was no evidence of vindictiveness. So, just because a judge gives a longer sentence than the state’s offer, it doesn’t automatically mean it’s unfair. This case talks about a judge who offered a defendant a lower sentence if they avoided trial, but then gave them a higher sentence when they went to trial and were found guilty. The higher sentence was upheld by the appeals court. The court said it was fair, but they also said it’s better for prosecutors, not judges, to offer lower sentences in exchange for not going to trial. Judges have a lot of pressure to move cases along quickly, but they have to remember that a defendant’s right to a trial is more important than anything else. Florida law allows judges to exempt the right to a jury trial for certain low-level crimes if the judge says the defendant won’t go to prison. The law encourages plea bargaining, but federal law says judges can’t be involved in these negotiations. The court can only take action if asked by a party in the case. Lack of remorse can’t be used to reject recommended punishment for juvenile offenders. Certain legal principles may not apply to resentencings after a specific court decision. A judge’s concern that a defendant didn’t plead guilty and the feeling that the judge was punishing the defendant for going to trial were noted. One judge felt the trial judge was either trying to punish the defendant or disagreed with the jury’s decision. Overall, the legal system’s approach to sentencing has come full circle, with increasing discretion for judges. Mark F. Lewis is a lawyer who works for the state. He is in charge of deciding which cases the state should pursue. He went to college in New York and law school in Florida. This column was written by the Criminal Law Section for the Florida Bar.
Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/lets-make-a-deal-the-problem-of-vindictive-sentencing/
Leave a Reply