THEODORE J. MOTT, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A sentence imposed under an amended sentencing guideline, effective after the offense date, violates the ex post facto doctrine.
The appellant pled guilty to escape, which occurred in March 1984. He was sentenced in September 1984 under sentencing guidelines amended effective Ju…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Ex Post Facto Clause cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Chief Judge.
The appellant, Theodore J. Mott, appeals from a sentence of fifteen years’ incarceration. The sole issue on appeal is whether he was properly sentenced pursuant to an amendment to the sentencing guidelines.
Mott was charged with escape, the offense occurring in March, 1984. He pled guilty to the charge in June and was sentenced in September to fifteen years’ incarceration pursuant to the sentencing guidelines then in effect. This allowed the trial judge to score more than four prior third-degree felonies based on an amendment effective July 1, 1984, to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.988(i)1
The question is whether this sentence violates the ex post facto doctrine. See Article I, Sections 9 and 10, United States Constitution. We have held that such retroactive application of an enhanced penalty guideline is proscribed. Joyce v. State, 466 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Hendrix v. State, 455 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Carter v. State, 452 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). See also Fletcher v. State, 468 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Miller v. State, 468 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). We adhere to that view.
Accordingly, we reverse the sentence, and remand for an appropriate sentence under the guidelines in effect at the time Mott committed the offense, or a departure sentence, if appropriate.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DAUKSCH and SHARP, JJ., concur. . See The Florida Bar: Amendment to Rules of Criminal Procedure (3.701, 3.988 — Sentencing Guidelines), 451 So. 2d 824 (Fla.1984).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Richardson v. State, 472 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…e of the [*1280] offense for which the person is being punished not the law in effect on the date of sentencing. United States ex rel. Forman v. McCall, 709 F. 2d 852, 856 (3rd Cir.1983). Accordingly, we join with our sister courts in Mott v. State, 469 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), and Miller v. State, 468 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), in holding that a disadvantageous guidelines change may not be applied to a defendant’s crimes committed before the effective date of the change, and we remand for resent…
-
van Horn v. State, 485 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…his sentencing was delayed by one week. . See, e.g., Richardson v. State, 472 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Fenton v. State, 466 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (state concession); Arnett v. State, 471 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Mott v. State, 469 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).…
-
State v. Lenard Taylor, 487 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 1986)…r because application of the latter would violate the ex post facto doctrine. We disagree and quash the decision below. We also disapprove, in pertinent part, the case law relied on: Moore v. State, 469 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Mott v. State, 469 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Miller v. State, 468 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). The case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion and Jackson. It is so ordered. BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON and McDONALD, JJ., concur. BARKETT, J.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- THE Fla. BAR: Amendment to Rules of Crim. Procedure (3.701, 451 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 1984)
- Carter v. State, 452 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Hendrix v. State, 455 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Miller v. State, 468 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Joyce v. State, 466 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Ellis C. Fletcher v. State, 468 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)