CLIFFORD R. PETERS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 Florida appellate court reversed consecutive sentences of 268 years imposed on a first-time felony offender for armed robbery convictions because the trial court improperly considered the defendant's refusal to recant trial testimony and ridiculed his religious beliefs during sentencing, both constitutionally prohibited factors.
The sentences must be reversed because the trial court unconstitutionally penalized the defendant for exercising his privilege against self-incrimination, his right to jury trial, his right to testify in his own behalf, and his right to religious freedom—all of which are constitutionally prohibited considerations in sentencing.
[1] A trial court impermissibly penalizes a defendant at sentencing for exercising the privilege against self-incrimination, the right to a jury trial, or the right to testif…
[2] A trial court impermissibly penalizes a defendant at sentencing for exercising religious freedom.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Plainly, the trial court penalized the defendant for exercising his privilege against self-incrimination, his right to be tried by a jury, and his right to testify in his own behalf — all of which are constitutionally prohibited in the sentencing process.”
Establishes the core holding that sentencing cannot be based on a defendant's exercise of fundamental constitutional rights
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClifford Peters, a first-time felony offender, was convicted by jury of two armed robberies and sentenced to consecutive sentences totaling 268 years …
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 Right To Testify cases and more on FLexlaw
[*31] PER CURIAM.
Clifford Peters, a first-time felony offender, appeals from two consecutive sentences, totalling 268 years imprisonment, imposed below for two armed robbery convictions entered after an adverse jury verdict. These sentences, had they been imposed three days later, would have been governed, at the defendant’s option, by the new sentencing guidelines established by Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701 with a recommended sentencing range of four and one-half to five and one-half years of imprisonment.
The record affirmatively demonstrates that the trial court based this unusually severe sentence on two constitutionally impermissible factors. First, the trial court considered the refusal of the defendant, upon the trial court’s invitation, to recant his trial testimony and confess to the charged robberies. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court specifically invited the defendant to repudiate his trial testimony, in which he had asserted his innocence, and to confess to the charged robberies. When the defendant refused, the trial court commented that the defendant’s trial testimony “sounds like a story that you probably invented while you [were] sitting there going through the trial.” Plainly, the trial court penalized the defendant for exercising his privilege against self-incrimination, his right to be tried by a jury, and his right to testify in his own behalf — all of which are constitutionally prohibited in the sentencing process. See, e.g., United States v. Robbins, 623 F. 2d 418 (5th Cir.1980); Thomas v. United States, 368 F. 2d 941 (5th Cir.1966); Hubler v. State, 458 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Fraley v. State, 426 So. 2d 983, 985 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
Second, the trial court ridiculed the defendant’s possession of a bible in court as a fraudulent expression of religious belief. The trial court stated that such religious behavior “is just so typical of most of you people who find religion while you are sitting in jail,” noting that the person identified as the defendant had made certain anti-religious statements to the victims, during the robberies in question. Plainly, the trial court penalized the defendant for exercising his religious freedom which is also constitutionally prohibited in the sentencing process. See Fraley v. State, supra.
We reverse the sentences under review and remand the cause to the trial court for resentencing. If the defendant so chooses, he shall be resentenced under the sentencing guidelines established by Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ritter v. State, 885 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…posing a sentence, it is constitutionally impermissible for it to consider the fact that a defendant continues to maintain his innocence and is unwilling to admit guilt. See, e.g., Lyons v. State, 730 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Peters v. State, 485 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Hubler v. State, 458 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Although remorse and an admission of guilt may be grounds for mitigation of sentence, the opposite is not true. See KN.M. v. State, 793 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Relianc…
-
Irfan Nawaz v. State, 28 So. 3d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…4th DCA 2002); Johnson v. State, 679 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (remanding for resentencing where comments by trial court could be read to infringe upon defendant’s decision to exercise his constitutional right to a jury trial); Peters v. State, 485 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (vacating sentence where court penalized the defendant for exercising his religious freedom by possessing a Bible in court as well as “for exercising his privilege against self-incrimination, his right to [*125] be tried by a jury…
-
DEL Haya v. State, 489 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…delines, we note that the two consecutive 134-year sentences imposed upon Del Haya, a first time offender, suffer from many of the same deficiencies which led to our reversal of the identical sentences imposed on his co-defendant in Peters v. State, 485 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).…
Authorities Cited
- Thomas v. United States, 368 F.2d 941 (5th Cir. 1966)
- Hubler v. State, 458 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Fraley v. State, 426 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- United States v. Robbins, 623 F.2d 418 (5th Cir. 1980)