Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

645 So. 2d 448

Docket No. 83013.

Melvin v. State

Frederick E. MELVIN, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided November 23, 1994.

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1994-11-23

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“bargained with the State and specifically agreed to plead to each charge and specifically accepted each sentence in exchange for reduced [punishment.]”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Brown v. State

Relies on 634 So. 2d 607 - Novaton v. State · Voorhees v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1994-11-23

How this case has been cited

Cited by 121 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc. (1997), 658 So. 2d 55 - State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Laforet (1995)

2 federal appellate · 111 state decisions

760199420002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*449 Julian Clarkson and Susan L. Turner of Holland & Knight, Tallahassee, for petitioner.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Consuelo Maingot, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, for respondent.

¶3OVERTON, Justice.

¶4We have for review Melvin v. State,630 So.2d 1139 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), in which the district court certified the following as a question of great public importance:

DOES A DEFENDANT, WHO KNOWINGLY ENTERED INTO A PLEA AGREEMENT, THEREBY WAIVE AN OTHERWISE VIABLE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAIM[?]

¶5Id. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution.

¶6The issue presented by the certified question is the same issue this Court recently addressed in Novaton v. State,634 So.2d 607 (Fla. 1994). In both Novaton and the instant case, the defendant plea-bargained with the State on multiple charges in exchange for reduced sentences. In each case, the defendant was sentenced according to the bargain and later discovered that some of the convictions were based on duplicative charges and that the convictions should have been barred by the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the state and federal constitutions. In Novaton, this Court held that, under the circumstances of that case, "where Novaton entered into a bargained plea with the State, [he] waived any double jeopardy claim that may [have affected] either his convictions or his sentences." Id. at 609.

¶7The circumstances in the instant case are essentially the same as those presented in Novaton. Melvin received reduced sentences on multiple charges, based on criminal acts Melvin committed in two separate instances, in exchange for his plea of no contest. The plea colloquy indicates that Melvin voluntarily entered into the plea bargain and that he was aware of the length and nature of each of the sentences to which he agreed. We find that, on these facts, Melvin waived his constitutional protection against double jeopardy in exchange for the substantial benefit of reduced charges. Accordingly, we answer the certified question in the affirmative.[1] The decision of the district court of appeal is approved.

¶8It is so ordered.

¶9GRIMES, C.J., and SHAW, KOGAN, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.

NOTES

¶10[1] We note, however, that a plea "agreement," the term used in the certified question, does not necessarily have the same connotation as a plea "bargain." Our decision in the instant case is based on the fact that Melvin bargained with the State and specifically agreed to plead to each charge and specifically accepted each sentence in exchange for reduced concurrent sentences with a three-year mandatory minimum sentence.

/645/so2d/448 · .json · Public domain