Jones v. State
Jones appealed his 24-year sentence imposed after he failed to appear at a sentencing hearing under a Quarterman agreement that had promised him a 5-year sentence, arguing the trial court erred by not finding his nonappearance willful. The Fifth District affirmed, holding that Jones's trial counsel only argued for leniency and never argued that the Quarterman violation was non-willful, so the issue was unpreserved under Cruz v. State. Judge Makar's concurrence extensively discusses the willfulness standard, burden of proof, and practical guidance for both defense counsel and the State in Quarterman agreement disputes.
Key facts
- Jones was sentenced to 24 years after failing to appear at a sentencing hearing, despite a Quarterman agreement that promised him a 5-year sentence.
- At sentencing, Jones's trial counsel argued only for leniency and did not specifically argue that Jones's nonappearance was not willful.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion reinforces and sharpens the preservation requirement first announced in Cruz v. State for challenges to a trial court's departure from a Quarterman sentencing agreement: defense counsel must specifically… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.