Tyrance Antoine Golfin v. The State of Florida

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: February 21, 2024
• Docket: 2023-0286
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed February 21, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-0286 Lower Tribunal No. F19-8517A ________________

Tyrance Antoine Golfin, Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Milton Hirsch, Judge.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Shannon Hemmendinger, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Linda Katz, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and EMAS and SCALES, JJ.

SCALES, J. Tyrance Antoine Golfin appeals a February 1, 2023 order revoking

Golfin’s community control and imposing sentence in lower tribunal case

number F19-8517A, based on Golfin’s failure to complete the Rehabilitation

Boot Camp Program. Because there is no competent, substantial evidence

in the record that such a requirement was ever made part of Golfin’s modified

sentence or Golfin’s underlying plea agreement, we reverse the challenged

order.

I. RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In March 2021, Golfin pled guilty as charged in lower tribunal case

number F19-8517A. In May 2022, while Golfin was serving the community

control portion of his sentence, Golfin’s reporting officer filed an affidavit of

violation of community control, charging Golfin with several technical

violations of the terms of his community control. At a September 12, 2022

hearing on this community control violation affidavit, the prosecutor

announced that the parties had reached a plea agreement,1 the terms of

which required that, in return for Golfin admitting to the technical violations,

1 There is no written plea agreement in the record. Nor is there any indication that the parties entered into a written plea agreement.

2 Golfin would continue to serve the remainder of his existing sentence,2

subject to several special conditions.

One of the special conditions announced by the prosecutor at the

September 12, 2022 hearing was that Golfin would serve “364 days in the

Dade County Jail, no credit for time served, to be mitigated [by] [Golfin]

enrolling and successfully completing boot camp.” The prosecutor explained

to Golfin that “these are technical violations. You failed to report, you failed

to attend a substance abuse assessment and treatment, and you also did

not stay confined to your residence. For these reasons, we are offering you

the boot camp option.” After a plea colloquy with Golfin, the trial court

accepted the plea agreement and, the same day, entered an “Order of

Modification of Community Control” that modified Golfin’s sentence in

accordance with the plea agreement.3 Golfin then began serving his one-

year jail sentence.

On January 16, 2023, Golfin’s reporting officer filed a new affidavit of

violation of community control, alleging that Golfin had breached the

2 Golfin had twenty-one months of community control remaining, followed by five years of probation. 3 The Order of Modification of Community Control expressly provided, in relevant part, that “Community Control is modified . . . in the following manner: . . . 365 days DCJ with No Credit Time Served; To be Mitigated upon acceptance into Boot Camp program.”

3 September 12, 2022 plea agreement and violated the terms of his

community control by refusing to participate in the boot camp. After holding

a hearing on this community control violation affidavit, the trial court entered

the challenged order that revoked Golfin’s community control and sentenced

Golfin to ten years in prison for the underlying crimes in this case.

II. ANALYSIS4

The September 12, 2022 Order of Modification of Community Control

expressly incorporated the terms of the parties’ September 12, 2022 plea

agreement. In moving to revoke Golfin’s community control, the State

seemingly led the trial court into believing that, as part of the plea agreement

and the Order of Modification of Community Control, Golfin was required to

complete the boot camp. But the terms of Golfin’s plea agreement –

4 “The State has the burden to prove a violation of community control by the greater weight of the evidence.” Kegler v. State, 313 So. 3d 824, 827 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021). “Upon appellate review, we must first determine whether competent, substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding of a willful and substantial violation.” Id. “When competent, substantial evidence supports a finding of a willful and substantial violation, we then review the decision to revoke supervision for an abuse of discretion.” Id.

Similarly, “[u]nless a defendant . . . admits that he has breached the terms of his plea agreement, . . . the circuit court cannot declare that the defendant violated the terms of his plea agreement in the absence of competent, substantial evidence to support that finding.” Neeld v. State, 977 So. 2d 740, 745 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).

4 announced by the prosecutor in open court at the September 12, 2022

hearing and incorporated into the Order of Modification of Community

Control – did not include any such requirement. Indeed, the prosecutor’s

proffer and the plea colloquy plainly show that Golfin agreed to serve one

year in county jail, with no credit for time served, with Golfin having the option

to mitigate this jail time if Golfin participated in the boot camp. Likewise, no

such boot camp requirement is contained in the Order of Modification of

Community Control. Hence, to the extent that the trial court found that Golfin

violated the terms of his community control by declining to exercise his boot

camp option, we are compelled to reverse because there is no competent,

substantial evidence in the record that the terms of Golfin’s community

control required him to exercise the boot camp option. See Edwards v. State,

296 So. 3d 986, 987 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (“[O]n appeal, competent

substantial evidence must support a finding of a willful and substantial

violation; only then will we assess whether the trial court abused its discretion

in revoking probation.” (quoting Savage v. State, 120 So. 3d 619, 624 (Fla.

2d DCA 2013))).

In addition, insofar as the State characterizes the challenged order as

a vacatur of the parties’ September 12, 2022 plea agreement, we note that

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(g) provides the mechanism for the

5 State to vacate a defendant’s plea agreement and sentence based on the

defendant’s alleged failure to comply with the specific terms of the

agreement. The State, though, never filed a rule 3.170(g) motion in the lower

proceedings. Regardless, to the extent the challenged order found that

Golfin’s refusal to exercise his boot camp option constituted a breach of the

September 12, 2022 plea agreement, such a finding similarly fails because

there is no evidence the agreement contained any requirement that Golfin

complete the boot camp. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.170(g)(1) (“Whenever a plea

agreement requires the defendant to comply with some specific terms, those

terms shall be expressly made a part of the plea entered into in open court.”);

McCullough v. State, 974 So. 2d 1214, 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (“Because

the trial court sentenced McCullough to the twenty-year sentences based

upon its erroneous conclusion that McCullough breached the plea

agreement, we reverse the sentences.”).

We, therefore, reverse the challenged order and remand for

proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.