Andrea Rhodeshia Smith v. State of Florida

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: January 7, 2026
• Docket: 3D2024-2304
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed January 7, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-2304 Lower Tribunal Nos. AGZSNFE & AJDETFE ________________

Andrea Rhodeshia Smith, Appellant,

vs.

State of Florida, Appellee.

An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Marcus Bach Armas, Judge.

Law Offices of Robert S. Reiff, P.A., and Robert S. Reiff, for appellant.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Lourdes B. Fernandez, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, LINDSEY and GORDO, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Wilson v. State, 845 So. 2d 142, 156 (Fla. 2003)

(“[F]actors that should be considered [in determining whether a presumption

of vindictiveness exists] include but are not limited to: (1) whether the trial

judge initiated the plea discussions with the defendant in violation of [State

v. Warner, 762 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 2000)]; (2) whether the trial judge, through

his or her comments on the record, appears to have departed from his or her

role as an impartial arbiter by either urging the defendant to accept a plea,

or by implying or stating that the sentence imposed would hinge on future

procedural choices, such as exercising the right to trial; (3) the disparity

between the plea offer and the ultimate sentence imposed; and (4) the lack

of any facts on the record that explain the reason for the increased sentence

other than that the defendant exercised his or her right to a trial or hearing.”)

(footnote omitted); Gonzalez v. State, 419 So. 3d 1194, 1198 (Fla. 3d DCA

2025) (“[T]he presumption of vindictiveness does not arise in this case. . . .

Since the presumption does not arise and the burden never shifts, [the

appellant] was required to prove actual vindictiveness. [The appellant] failed

to do so.”).