SCOTT BRIAN WEIAND
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Scott Brian Weiand, a juvenile offender sentenced to life without parole, appealed the trial court's denial of his motion for sentence review under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.802. The court reversed and remanded, finding that the trial court failed to conduct a proper sentence review hearing with required statutory findings and instead relied on an earlier resentencing order.
The court reversed and remanded because the trial court erred in summarily denying the motion without conducting a proper sentence review hearing with required written findings pursuant to section 921.1402(7) and Rule 3.802(d)(2). The trial court cannot rely on a prior resentencing order as a substitute for a current sentence review hearing with specific statutory findings.
[1] A written order following a juvenile sentence review hearing must detail the court's reasons for not modifying the sentence.
[2] A trial court errs by summarily denying a motion for review of a juvenile sentence without attaching records that conclusively refute the appellant's claims for relief.
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“We find that the order in question is erroneous because it made no findings pursuant to section 921.1402, even though both section 921.1402(7) and Rule 3.802(d)(2) require that a written order following a sentence review hearing detail the court's reasons for not modifying the sentence.”
Establishes the core holding that the trial court must make specific statutory findings explaining why it did not modify the sentence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1988, Weiand was sentenced as a juvenile to two life sentences. In 2017, he was resentenced to life without the possibility of parole following Gra…
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 Life Without Parole For Juveniles cases and more on FLexlaw
WALLIS, J.
Appellant appeals the trial court's denial of his Motion for Review of Juvenile Sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.802. We find that no sentence review was held pursuant to section 921.1402, Florida Statutes (2019), and Rule 3.802. Therefore, we reverse and remand.
In 1988, Appellant was sentenced as a juvenile offender to two life sentences, and in 2017, he was resentenced pursuant to Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), and Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), to life without the possibility of parole. In 2019,
Appellant filed a motion for sentence review pursuant to section 921.1402 and Rule 3.802.
The trial court found that it had conducted a sufficient review during the 2017 resentencing and dismissed the motion as premature without prejudice for Appellant to refile the motion. This Court reversed the trial court's order, finding that the request for review was not premature, and remanded with directions for the trial court to either conduct a review hearing, or attach records conclusively showing that it had conducted a sufficient review during the 2017 resentencing. Weiand v. State, 277 So. 3d 261, 262–63 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019).
On remand, the trial court entered the order on appeal, relying on its 2017 sentencing order as evidence that it considered the relevant statutory factors and conducted the sentence review hearing. We find that the order in question is erroneous because it made no findings pursuant to section 921.1402, even though both section 921.1402(7) and Rule 3.802(d)(2) require that a written order following a sentence review hearing detail the court's reasons for not modifying the sentence. The trial court additionally erred when it summarily denied Appellant's Motion for Review of Juvenile Sentence without attaching transcripts to the order conclusively refuting Appellant's claims for relief. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D) (explaining that an appellate court "shall" reverse the summary denial of relief on a postconviction motion, including those filed pursuant to Rule 3.802, "unless the record shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief" and the cause will be "remanded for an evidentiary hearing or other 2 appropriate relief"). For these reasons, we reverse the order and remand for a sentencing review. Because we are concerned by previous comments that Judge Howard has made, which suggest that he has already formed an opinion on this cause, we direct that the sentencing review be conducted by a different judge. See Bellay v. State, 277 So. 3d 605, 609 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).
REVERSED and REMANDED with Instructions.
ORFINGER and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur. 3
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Weiand v. State, 277 So. 3d 261 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)…equest for review was not premature, and remanded with directions for the trial court to either conduct a review hearing, or attach records conclusively showing that it had conducted a sufficient review during the 2017 resentencing. Weiand v. State, 277 So. 3d 261, 262–63 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019). On remand, the trial court entered the order on appeal, relying on its 2017 sentencing order as evidence that it considered the relevant statutory factors and conducted the sentence review hearing. We find that the orde…
-
Bell v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)…n from an eligible juvenile offender, the court . . . shall hold a sentence review hearing . . . ). In denying Appellant’s motion for reconsideration arguing it lacked jurisdiction to conduct the hearing, the sentencing court cited Weiand v. State, 277 So. 3d 261 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019). However, the case falls short of the issue at hand. Weiand holds that a sentencing and review hearing pursuant to sections 1401 and 1402 may occur at the same proceeding. See id. at 263. Weiand did not address whether a trial co…
-
Peterson v. State (Fla. 6th DCA 2023)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See § 921.1402(2)(d), Fla. Stat. 2022 (“A juvenile offender sentenced to a term of 20 years or more under s. 775.082(3)(c) is entitled to a review of his or her sentence after 20 years.”); see also Weiand v. State, 277 So. 3d 261, 262 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) (using the original sentencing date to determine if defendant served requisite number of years). NARDELLA and SMITH, JJ., and SASSO, M.L., Associate Judge, concur. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARIN…
Authorities Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (U.S. 2012)
- Sawyer v. State, 341 So. 3d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
- Weiand v. State, 277 So. 3d 261 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)