Stephanie Proffitt v. State of Florida

── Stephanie Proffitt v. State of Florida ── Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida Date: April 17, 2026 Category: General SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ Case No. 6D2024-1066 Lower Tribunal No. 21-CF-016591 _____________________________ STEPHANIE PROFFITT, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _____________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County. Bruce Kyle, Judge. April 17, 2026 NARDELLA, J. Stephanie Proffitt (“Proffitt”) appeals her convictions for drug related crimes 1 arguing that evidence was improperly admitted at trial and that, after trial, the court imposed a vindictive sentence. We reject both arguments but write only to address 1 Trafficking in 4 grams or more of fentanyl (Count I); possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell or deliver (Count II); trafficking in 28 grams or more of fentanyl (Count III); possession of a controlled substance (Count IV); and possession of a place with knowledge of trafficking, sale, or manufacture of a controlled substance (Count V). the second—that her sentence must be reversed because the trial court imposed a vindictive sentence after she declined to accept the State’s plea offer. BACKGROUND Before calling the jury in on the morning of trial, the court asked defense counsel to confirm that Proffitt would not be accepting the State’s plea offer of the 25 years with all mandatory minimums wrapped together, as it would impact other pending matters. 2 The court then offered defense counsel a few minutes to confer. When the conference ended, defense counsel announced that Proffitt would not accept the State’s offer. To clarify the status, the court then questioned: “And no counter I am assuming then?” Defense counsel stated no. The court then asked what the offer was and confirmed on the record that Proffitt wanted to reject it. In her detailed response, Proffitt stated that she had not “really talked to him (counsel) much in the whole process of everything” but that she was told about an offer which the court was unaware of. The court then once again confirmed that Proffitt did not want to accept the State’s offer and did not need more time to speak with counsel. Proffitt proceeded to trial where she was found guilty as charged on all counts. The trial court granted the State’s request and imposed the maximum sentence on 2 One issue related to whether another individual who was out of custody needed to be held, and another was scheduling reasons involving depositions and out-of-state travel. 2 Count III—30 years’ imprisonment with a 25-year mandatory minimum. It imposed concurrent prison sentences on the other counts. 3 When imposing the sentence, the trial court acknowledged defense counsel’s mitigation argument but stated that it did not believe the mitigator applied and would not reduce Proffitt’s sentence even if it did apply based on the evidence that was adduced at trial. STANDARD OF REVIEW Whether a sentence is vindictive is a question of law reviewed de novo. See Gonzalez v. State, 419 So. 3d 1194, 1197 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025) (“Our evaluation of whether a defendant’s sentence stems from judicial vindictiveness is a question of law. As a result, our review is de novo.”); Pickard v. State, 417 So. 3d 491, 494 (Fla. 5th DCA 2025) (“Whether a sentence is vindictive is a question of law that we review de novo.”). DISCUSSION Proffitt argues the trial court’s senten