DEAN R. BOURGAULT, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Bourgault appealed his sentencing for sexual battery and kidnapping, claiming the trial judge exceeded sentencing guidelines. The court initially affirmed his conviction but found that the same trial errors that led to reversal of his codefendant's conviction in a parallel case also infected Bourgault's conviction, warranting reversal and a new trial.
The court reversed Bourgault's convictions and sentence and remanded for a new trial. The court held that because the same reversible errors found in the codefendant's case also infected Bourgault's trial, manifest injustice and unfairness resulted from affirming only Bourgault's conviction while reversing the codefendant's on identical grounds.
[1] A court may reverse and remand for resentencing within guidelines when a trial judge improperly exceeds those guidelines.
[2] Subsequent overwhelming events may render a mere remand for resentencing inadequate.
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“The result is manifestly unjust, unfair and confounds our search for uniformity. The errors at trial were found to be reversible as to Heddleson, but the exact same errors were affirmed as to Bourgault.”
Establishes the core rationale for reversal: identical trial errors treated inconsistently between codefendants violates fundamental fairness and uniformity.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBourgault was convicted of sexual battery and kidnapping at trial alongside a codefendant. The court had previously affirmed his conviction and remand…
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 Sentencing Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Judge.
This particular codefendant, Bourgault, is currently appealing his sentence, contending, for the second time, that the trial judge improperly exceeded the guidelines. We agree and, under ordinary circumstances, would reverse and remand for resentencing within the guidelines; however, subsequent overwhelming events have made a mere remand for resentencing totally inadequate.
In the beginning, we affirmed this code-fendant’s conviction for sexual battery and kidnapping. See Bourgault v. State, 491 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), and remanded only for a sentencing guidelines transgression. Thereafter, in Heddleson v. State, 512 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), this court reversed the conviction of Bour-gault’s codefendant at the same trial for the same offenses. The same two issues on which we reversed the conviction in Heddleson were also presented in the original Bourgault appeal.
The result is manifestly unjust, unfair and confounds our search for uniformity. The errors at trial were found to be reversible as to Heddleson, but the exact same errors were affirmed as to Bourgault.
Upon learning of our Heddleson decision, Bourgault has now filed a motion in the instant appeal attempting to broaden its scope to include a reversal of his conviction and sentence which we upheld over a year ago. To accomplish this, he refers us to the Third District case of Joseph v. State, 447 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). The Joseph decision involved a scenario very much like the one before us now and, while we share the concerns voiced by Judge Hubbart in his dissent, we note that the Supreme Court denied review in 447 So. 2d 888 (Fla.1984).
Accordingly, and without further discussion, we adopt the result in Joseph based on the totality of the facts and circumstances present in the instant case and hold, as Joseph did, that if this codefendant:
without undue delay [will] move the trial court to vacate his [two] convictions under Rule 3.850 in reliance on this decision, we direct the trial court to grant [Bourgault] such relief and a new trial.
We also embrace and adopt the decision in Heddleson.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HERSEY, C.J., and DOWNEY, ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN, DELL, WALDEN, GUNTHER and STONE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Romero v. State, 637 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…entitled to a new trial because the court erred in failing to give the lesser included instruction. Gonzalez v. State, 617 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). This is not the first time this has occurred, and, as Judge Letts said in Bourgault v. State, 515 So. 2d 1287, 1287 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), “The result is manifestly unjust, unfair and confounds our search for uniformity.” This court has procedures in place to avoid this very thing, one of which is a notice sent to all counsel which provides: In criminal eas…
-
Benedit v. State, 610 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…denied, 449 U.S. 1067, 101 S.Ct. 796, 66 L.Ed.2d 612 (1980); Joseph v. State, 447 So. 2d 243, 246-47 (Fla. 3d DCA1983) (en banc), rev. denied, 447 So. 2d 888 (Fla.1983); accord Wright v. State, 604 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 4th DCA1992); Bourgault v. State, 515 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 4th DCA1987) (en banc). The final order under review is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to vacate the defendant’s conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony.…
-
Wright v. State, 604 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…y same reason that this defendant was denied relief by a different panel. This court has previously ruled, en banc, that such diametrically opposite results are “manifestly unjust, unfair and confounds our search for uniformity.” Bourgault v. State, 515 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). The only other district that has ruled on this subject agreed with this finding. Joseph v. State, 447 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), rev. denied, 447 So. 2d 888 (Fla.1984). Following the procedure approved in Bourgault, we rev…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Joseph v. State, 447 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Heddleson v. State, 512 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Bourgault v. State, 491 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)