In Stevens v. State, 419 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 1982), the Court described the two-tiered process for determining whether a discussion should be characterized as a plea negotiation so as to render it inadmissible in evidence. To determine whether a statement is made in connection with plea negotiations, a court should use a two-tiered analysis and determine, first, whether the accused exhibited an actual subjective expectation to negotiate a plea at the time of the discussion, and, second, whether the accused's expectation was reasonable given the totality of the objective circumstances. United States v. Robertson, 582 F.2d 1356, 1366 (5th Cir. 1978) (en banc); See also United States v. O'Brien, 618 F.2d 1234 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 858, 101 S. Ct. 157, 66 L. Ed. 2d 73 (1980); United States v. Pantohan, 602 F.2d 855 (9th Cir. 1979). Whether a defendant's subjective expectation of negotiating a plea is reasonable depends on whether the state has indicated a willingness to plea-bargain and has in fact solicited the statement in question from the defendant. Unsolicited, unilateral utterances are not statements made in connection with plea negotiations. Id. at 1062.