JEROME ROBINSON
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.
The appellate court affirmed a defendant's sentence for drug trafficking, holding that a statutory amendment reducing the minimum weight for the offense did not apply retroactively to his case. The court remanded for correction of a scrivener's error in the judgment.
No, the amendment does not apply retroactively. Because the defendant's judgment and sentence were already imposed before the statutory amendment and the relevant statute governing amendments operates prospectively, the trial court properly sentenced him under the law in effect at the time of his original adjudication.
[1] Amendments to criminal statutes operate prospectively and do not affect prior prosecutions or violations occurring before the effective date of the amendment, unless expr…
[2] A defendant cannot benefit from a reduced penalty under an amended criminal statute if their judgment and sentence were already imposed prior to the statutory amendment.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Except as expressly provided in an act of the Legislature or as provided in subsections (4) and (5), the reenactment or amendment of a criminal statute operates prospectively and does not affect or abate any of the following: ... A violation of the statute based on any act or omission occurring before the effective date of the act.”
Establishes the general rule that statutory amendments operate prospectively.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJerome Robinson was sentenced for oxycodone trafficking in 2015. After his release, he violated probation by committing new offenses. At the time of h…
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 Retroactivity Of Statutory Amendments cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, J.
In February 2015, Jerome Robinson was sentenced to 36 months in the Department of Corrections (DOC) followed by 2 years of drug offender probation for trafficking in oxycodone, an offense that occurred in June 2011.
Following his release from prison, Robinson allegedly violated his probation, in part, by committing a series of new law violations.
In October 2020, Robinson admitted to violating probation by his arrest and conviction in two other cases. The court entered a written order revoking Robinson’s probation and sentenced him to 30 years in DOC. Robinson now appeals his judgment and sentence, arguing that the trial court should have treated his underlying offense as a third-degree felony based on an amendment to the trafficking statute that occurred between the date of his offense and the date of his probation revocation. We find that the trial court properly sentenced Robinson and affirm.
At the time of Robinson’s original judgment and sentence, the minimum trafficking weight of oxycodone was defined as 4 grams or more but less than 30 kilograms. § 893.135(1)(c)1., Fla. Stat. (2010). This is the crime for which Robinson was originally sentenced. The Florida Legislature subsequently amended the statute, and at the time Robinson admitted to violating his probation, the minimum trafficking weight of oxycodone was increased to 7 grams or more. § 893.135(1)(c)3., Fla. Stat. Robinson argued that because the statute changed while he was on probation, his original offense should now be treated as third-degree felony possession.
Section 775.022, Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part: 2 (3) Except as expressly provided in an act of the Legislature or as provided in subsections (4) and (5), the reenactment or amendment of a criminal statute operates prospectively and does not affect or abate any of the following:
(a) The prior operation of the statute or a prosecution or enforcement thereunder. (b) A violation of the statute based on any act or omission occurring before the effective date of the act.
(c) A prior penalty, prior forfeiture, or prior punishment incurred or imposed under the statute.
(4) If a penalty, forfeiture, or punishment for a violation of a criminal statute is reduced by a reenactment or an amendment of a criminal statute, the penalty, forfeiture, or punishment, if not already imposed, must be imposed according to the statute as amended. § 775.022, Fla. Stat. (2019) (emphasis added).
At the time Robinson was originally sentenced for trafficking oxycodone, his offense was a first-degree felony. Because Robinson’s judgment and sentence were already imposed prior to both the amendment to section 893.135 and section 775.022, he cannot take advantage of section 775.022(4). See Stapleton v. State, 286 So. 3d 837 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019).
Upon revocation of a defendant’s probation, the court must impose any sentence which it might have ordinally imposed. § 948.06(2)(e), Fla. Stat. (“If 3 such probation or community control is revoked, the court shall adjudge the probationer or offender guilty of the offense charged and proven or admitted, unless he or she has previously been adjudged guilty, and impose any sentence which it might have originally imposed before placing the probationer or offender on probation or into community control.”). The trial court’s decision to apply the criminal statute in effect at the time Robinson was adjudicated and placed on probation was correct. Robinson’s sentence is legal and is affirmed in all respects.
However, the most recent judgment and sentence reflects that Robinson was originally convicted of “TRAFFIC IN OXYCODONE 7G OR MORE BUT LESS THAN 14G.” This is a scrivener’s error, as he was originally convicted of trafficking in oxycodone 4 grams or more but less than 14 grams. While we affirm the judgment and sentence, we remand for correction of the scrivener’s error on the judgment to reflect the correct offense. See Johnson v. State, 84 So. 3d 452 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (remanding to correct scrivener’s error where jury convicted defendant of attempted robbery with a firearm, but judgment reflected a conviction for robbery with a firearm).
AFFIRMED; REMANDED EDWARDS and NARDELLA, JJ., concur. 4