Andrea Rhodeshia Smith v. State of Florida

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.

2
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.”).