Santoni v. State ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •        Third District Court of Appeal
    State of Florida
    Opinion filed July 30, 2014.
    Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
    ________________
    No. 3D14-609
    Lower Tribunal No. 14-4513
    ________________
    Nelson Santoni,
    Petitioner,
    vs.
    The State of Florida,
    Respondent.
    A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Mandamus.
    Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Manuel Alvarez, Assistant Public
    Defender, for petitioner.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Douglas J. Glaid, Senior Assistant
    Attorney General, for respondent.
    Before SUAREZ, LAGOA, and LOGUE, JJ.
    LOGUE, J.
    Nelson Santoni petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to
    accept his guilty plea to second-degree murder. We deny the petition.
    The State, by information, charged Santoni with second-degree murder. At
    the arraignment on the charge, the State informed the trial court that it was seeking
    a grand jury indictment on first-degree murder, which, unlike second-degree
    murder, carries as its maximum penalty the sentence of death.1 Defense counsel
    immediately announced Santoni’s unconditional offer to plead guilty to second-
    degree murder. The State objected to the plea due, in part, to the constitutional
    right of the homicide victim’s next of kin to be present at crucial stages of criminal
    proceedings. After hearing arguments of counsel, the trial court declined to
    consider the guilty plea at that hearing. This petition followed.
    “In order to be entitled to a writ of mandamus the petitioner must have a
    clear legal right to the requested relief, the respondent must have an indisputable
    legal duty to perform the requested action, and the petitioner must have no other
    adequate remedy available.” Huffman v. State, 
    813 So. 2d 10
    , 11 (Fla. 2000). The
    issue in this case is whether the trial court had the discretion to postpone
    consideration of Santoni’s request to plead guilty. We hold the trial court has such
    discretion.
    1In Florida, first-degree murder must be prosecuted by grand jury indictment. Fla.
    R. Crim. P. 3.140(1).
    2
    Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.160 recognizes the trial court’s
    discretion in determining when to consider and accept a plea. It provides:
    If a person who has been indicted or informed against for an offense,
    but who has not been arraigned, desires to plead guilty thereto, the
    person may so inform the court having jurisdiction of the offense, and
    the court shall, as soon as convenient, arraign the defendant and
    permit the defendant to plead guilty to the indictment or information.
    Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.160(c) (emphasis added). The phrase “as soon as convenient”
    grants the trial court a modicum of discretion in deciding when to schedule a plea
    hearing.
    This makes sense. Before accepting a guilty plea, the trial court “shall
    determine that the plea is voluntarily entered and that a factual basis for the plea
    exists.” Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.172(a). Such an inquiry, which requires the participation
    of the prosecution and defense, does not permit a defendant to unilaterally dictate
    when the trial court can accept a plea. For example, before accepting a guilty plea,
    the trial court may order the defendant to undergo psychological evaluations to
    determine whether he or she is entering the plea voluntarily. Or, the prosecutor
    present at the arraignment may be too unfamiliar with the case to provide a factual
    basis for the plea at that time.
    Moreover, Florida’s constitution protects the right of homicide victim’s next
    of kin to attend crucial stages of criminal proceedings to the extent the right does
    not interfere with the constitutional rights of the accused. Art. I, § 16(b), Fla.
    3
    Const. The trial court’s responsibility to ensure that the victim’s rights are properly
    accommodated also cuts against the claim that a defendant may unilaterally dictate
    the timing of a plea hearing. The scheduling of such a deliberative process is far
    from the type of ministerial act that can be compelled by issuance of a writ of
    mandamus.
    As Santoni himself concedes, there is no federal constitutional right to have
    a trial court accept a guilty plea, much less one that controls the timing of the plea
    hearing. See Santobello v. New York, 
    404 U.S. 257
    , 262 (1971) (“There is, of
    course, no absolute right to have a guilty plea accepted.”); North Carolina v.
    Alford, 
    400 U.S. 25
    , 38 n.11 (1970) (“A criminal defendant does not have an
    absolute right under the Constitution to have his guilty plea accepted by the court,
    although the States may by statute or otherwise confer such a right.”) (internal
    citation omitted). Florida also has not conferred such a categorical right. See
    Rigabar v. Broome, 
    658 So. 2d 1038
    , 1040 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).2
    The State, relying on State ex rel. Schieres v. Nimmons, 
    364 So. 2d 1262
    (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), further argues that a trial court may reject an unconditional
    offer to plead guilty to second-degree murder if the plea is a tactical maneuver
    2 We do not reach the issue of whether the trial court had discretion to reject the
    plea if the requirements of rule 3.172 had been met. We note only that the Fourth
    District, in granting a mandamus petition, held a trial court must accept an
    unconditional guilty plea where it is (1) knowingly and voluntarily offered, (2)
    supported by a factual basis, and (3) agreed to by the State. Rigabar, 
    658 So. 2d at 1040
    .
    4
    designed to avoid a grand jury’s indictment for first-degree murder. We do not
    reach that issue. We simply hold that a trial court has the discretion to decide when
    to hold a plea hearing. Because the timing decision lies within the sound discretion
    of the trial court, mandamus is not available to control the scheduling of the
    hearing. See Mathews v. Crews, 
    132 So. 3d 776
    , 778 (Fla. 2014) (“It is well-settled
    that mandamus is neither the appropriate vehicle to seek review of an allegedly
    erroneous decision by another court, nor is it the proper vehicle to mandate the
    doing or undoing of a discretionary act.”).
    Petition denied.
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-0609

Judges: Suarez, Lagoa, Logue

Filed Date: 7/30/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024