LOUIS PACHECO, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed a life sentence imposed under sentencing guidelines adopted by the Supreme Court, holding that the guidelines are procedural rules within the Court's constitutional authority to adopt without legislative enactment.
The sentencing guidelines are procedural in nature and fall within the Supreme Court's constitutional authority to adopt as rules of practice and procedure without legislative approval.
[1] Sentencing guidelines adopted by the Supreme Court are procedural rules within the Court's constitutional authority under Article V, Section 2 of the Florida Constitution…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePacheco was sentenced to life without parole under sentencing guidelines for a crime committed on January 19, 1984, before the guidelines were legisla…
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 Rules Of Practice And Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The only substantial question presented on this appeal1 challenges the application of the sentencing guidelines, pursuant to which the defendant was given a life sentence without parole, for a crime which occurred on January 19, 1984, before the guidelines were enacted by the legislature. Pacheco contends that the promulgation of the guidelines by the Supreme Court alone was an invalid assertion of purely legislative power. See State v. Cande, 478 So. 2d 1362, 1363 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (Schwartz, C.J., specially concurring). We reject this contention and affirm on the authority of the holding in State v. Jackson, 478 So. 2d 1054 (Fla.1985) that the sentencing guidelines are procedural in nature. It follows from this determination that the Supreme Court possessed the authority to adopt the guidelines as rules of practice and procedure pursuant to Article V, Section 2 of the Florida Constitution. But see § 921.-001(4)(b), Fla.Stat. (1983).
We certify to the Supreme Court of Florida that this decision passes upon the following question of great public importance:
Whether the sentencing guidelines are procedural in nature so as to authorize their adoption by the Supreme Court without approval by the legislature. Affirmed.
. The other issues present no error and require no discussion.
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge
(specially concurring).
While I dissented in Van Horn v. State, 485 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), on the basis of my conviction that a retroactive application of the guidelines offends the United States Constitution, the present issue, concerning the proper characterization of the guidelines for purposes of applying the separation of powers doctrine embodied in the Florida Constitution, is one solely of Florida law. On these issues, as I indicated in Van Horn, we are conclusively bound by the decision of the Supreme Court of Florida. I therefore concur in the decision to affirm.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lewis v. State, 597 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…s, 342 U.S. 519, 72 S.Ct. 509, 96 L.Ed. 541 (1952); Jones v. State, 386 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). . Theirs not to make reply, Theirs not to reason why Alfred Lord Tennyson, The Charge of the Light Brigade, st. 2 (1854). See Pacheco v. State, 485 So. 2d 1379 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (Schwartz, C.J., specially concurring); Van Horn v. State, 485 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (Schwartz, C.J., dissenting).…
-
van Horn v. State, 485 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…a two-thirds vote of the legislature. I am obviously not prepared to say what the effect of a determination that ousts the legislature of all but the power to veto guideline revisions might be on any particular guideline issue, see Pacheco v. State, 485 So. 2d 1379 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), or, indeed, on the continued viability of the guidelines concept as a whole — particularly in view of the fact that the legislature was the moving force behind their enactment in the first place. See § 921.001 et seq., Fla. Stat.…
-
Pacheco v. Dugger, 850 F.2d 1493 (11th Cir. 1988)…lant’s section 2254 petition is AFFIRMED. . The appellant raised the separation of powers question in terms of state law in his direct appeal. His argument was rejected based upon State v. Jackson, 478 So. 2d 1054 (Fla.1985). See Pacheco v. State, 485 So. 2d 1379 (Fla.App.1986). We note that the Supreme Court of Florida has now disavowed its opinion in Jackson in light of Miller v. Florida, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 2446, 96 L.Ed.2d 351 (1987). See e.g., State v. Sueiro, 515 So. 2d 210 (Fla.1987): Booker v. State,…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Jackson, 478 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1985)
- van Horn v. State, 485 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)