ROBERT PAUL PATTERSON, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 court held that sentencing guideline amendments are not purely procedural and their retrospective application can violate the ex post facto clause.
[1] Amendments to sentencing guidelines are not merely procedural changes and their retrospective application may violate the ex post facto clause.
[2] Retrospective application of revised sentencing guidelines that disadvantage a defendant violates the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution.
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 intelligenceThe case was remanded for reconsideration in light of a Supreme Court ruling that found retrospective application of sentencing guideline amendments u…
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
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on remand from the United States Supreme Court for further consideration in light of Miller v. Florida, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 2446, 96 L.Ed.2d 351 (1987), which held, contrary to our holding in State v. Jackson, 478 So. 2d 1054 (Fla.1985), that the amendments to the sentencing guidelines are not mere procedural changes in the law. The Court found that retrospective application of the revised guidelines disadvantaged Miller, violating the ex post facto clause of article I of the United States Constitution.
The trial court, in the instant case, applied the guidelines in effect at the time of Patterson’s offense. The district court found that the trial court departed from the guidelines without meeting the formal departure requirements and without justifying its departure with clear and convincing reasons. The district court affirmed the sentence, however, finding that it was not a departure under the amended guidelines which would apply on resentencing under Jackson. The court certified the same question certified in Wilkerson v. State, 494 So. 2d 210, 210 (Fla.1986), vacated, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 3206, 96 L.Ed.2d 693 (1987):
WHETHER ALL SENTENCING GUIDELINES AMENDMENTS ARE TO BE CONSIDERED PROCEDURAL IN NATURE SO THAT THE GUIDELINES AS MOST RECENTLY AMENDED SHALL BE APPLIED AT THE TIME OF SENTENCING WITHOUT REGARD TO THE EX POST FACTO DOCTRINE.
Patterson v. State, 486 So. 2d 74, 76 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).
We approved the result of the district court’s opinion, finding that, on the authority of Jackson, we had answered the certified question in the affirmative in Wilkerson. Patterson v. State, 499 So. 2d 831 (Fla.), vacated, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 3206, 96 L.Ed.2d 693 (1987). Having reconsidered this matter in light of Miller, we answer the certified question in the negative, disapprove the district court’s decision, and remand to the district court for further consideration consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
McDonald, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Walton v. State, 847 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 2003)…the door concerning this issue. This Court has consistently held that lack-of-remorse evidence cannot be presented by the state as an aggravating circumstance in. its case in chief, see Robinson v. State, 520 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1988); Patterson v. State, 513 So. 2d 1263 (Fla.1987); Pope v. State, 441 So. 2d 1073 (Fla.1983); Jackson v. Wainwright, 421 So. 2d 1385 (Fla.1982), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1229, 103 S.Ct. 3572, 77 L.Ed.2d 1412 (1983), but that does not mean the state is unable to present this evidence to reb…
-
Walton v. State, 547 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 1989)…the door concerning this issue. This Court has consistently held that lack-of-remorse evidence cannot be presented by the state as an aggravating circumstance in its case in chief, see Robinson v. State, 520 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1988); Patterson v. State, 513 So. 2d 1263 (Fla.1987); Pope v. State, 441 So. 2d 1073 (Fla.1983); Jackson v. Wainwright, 421 So. 2d 1385 (Fla.1982), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1229, 103 S.Ct. 3572, 77 L.Ed.2d 1412 (1983), but that does not mean the state is unable to present this evidence to reb…
-
Warfield Raymond Wike, Jr. v. State, 596 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 1992)…or about a year. Furthermore, in his closing argument, the prosecutor emphasized Wike’s lack of remorse to the jury. We find that the use of lack of remorse in this manner was error. See Pope v. State, 441 So. 2d 1073 (Fla.1983); Patterson v. State, 513 So. 2d 1263 (Fla.1987); McCampbell v. State, 421 So. 2d 1072 (Fla.1982). Because of our holding on the continuance issue, we need not address whether or not the prosecutor’s comments were harmless error under State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986). For…
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
- Miller v. Florida, 482 U.S. 423 (U.S. 1987)
- State v. Jackson, 478 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1985)
- Wilkerson v. State, 494 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 1986)
- Payne v. State, 486 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Patterson v. State, 486 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- THE Florida BAR v. Casety, 499 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 1986)
- Patterson v. State, 499 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 1987)