THOMAS ALVIN CONNELL, 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.
The appellate court affirmed a defendant's sentence, holding that the sentencing guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing, not conviction, apply, even if the delay was caused by the state's appeal. This decision clarifies the application of sentencing guidelines when appeals cause delays.
The court held that the sentencing guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing apply, not those in effect at the time of conviction. An ex post facto violation did not occur because the recommended sentencing ranges under either set of guidelines did not exceed the pre-guidelines maximum sentence.
[1] The sentencing guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing apply unless doing so would constitute an ex post facto violation.
[2] An ex post facto violation does not occur when the recommended sentencing range under the applicable guidelines does not exceed the pre-guidelines maximum sentence.
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“The applicable guidelines are those in effect at the time of sentencing, State v. Jackson, 478 So. 2d 1054 (Fla.1985), unless an ex post facto violation would occur, see Miller v. Florida, 482 U.S. —, 107 S.Ct. 2446, 96 L.Ed.2d 351 (1987).”
This quote establishes the general rule for which sentencing guidelines apply and the exception for ex post facto violations.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was convicted of sexual battery and lewd and lascivious assault. Although the crimes occurred before the effective date of sentencing gu…
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 Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
LEHAN, Judge.
Defendant appeals from his sentence of nine years for sexual battery and lewd and lascivious assault imposed pursuant to the sentencing guidelines which were in effect at the time of his sentencing. Although the crime had occurred prior to the effective date of the guidelines, defendant elected guidelines sentencing. Defendant contends that the guidelines in effect at the time of his conviction should control. Defendant points out that his sentencing was delayed when the trial court ordered a new trial and the state appealed therefrom. This court reversed that order in State v. Connell, 478 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). During that delay period the sentencing guidelines were amended and the recommended range for defendant’s convictions was increased. We affirm.
The applicable guidelines are those in effect at the time of sentencing, State v. Jackson, 478 So. 2d 1054 (Fla.1985), unless an ex post facto violation would occur, see Miller v. Florida, 482 U.S. —, 107 S.Ct. 2446, 96 L.Ed.2d 351 (1987).
No ex post facto violation occurred under the circumstances of this case because the guidelines recommended sentencing ranges under either the guidelines in effect at the time of defendant’s conviction or those in effect at the time of his sentencing did not exceed the pre-guidelines maximum sentence of 30 years. That the recommended guidelines sentence increased during the time of state’s appeal from the new trial order does not constitute an ex post facto violation. Nor can we say, as defendant contends, that defendant would necessarily have been sentenced under the prior guidelines if he had not appealed from that order. While defendant’s argument has given us pause for thought, we do not conclude that the argument is consistent with the law or that, if adopted, it would provide an appropriate precedent for future cases, dependent as it is upon speculation as to when sentencing would occur.
Affirmed.
DANAHY, C.J., and BOARDMAN, EDWARD F., (Ret.) J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Connell v. Wade, 538 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 1989)…SHAW, Justice. We have for review Connell v. State, 517 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), based upon conflict with State v. Miller, 512 So. 2d 198 (Fla.1987). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We approve the decision of the district court. This case presents the following issue. When a defendant co…1 / 2
-
Dreyer v. State, 532 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…his affirmative election to receive a guideline sentence. Harrington v. State, 455 So. 2d 1317 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Having done so, he is presumed to have elected whatever version of the guidelines existed at the time of sentencing. Connell v. State, 517 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).…
-
Colbert v. State, 518 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…wing the lengths of sentences imposed pursuant to the guidelines. See Tuthill v. State, 518 So. 2d 1300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Therefore, we hold that the guidelines in effect at the time of the resentencing in this case applied. Cf. Connell v. State, 517 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). This happens to produce the same result as that under the direction of the Florida Supreme Court in Colbert which the trial court followed at the resentencing but takes into account the foregoing proscription pronounced subsequen…
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
- Miller v. Florida, 482 U.S. 423 (U.S. 1987)
- State v. Jackson, 478 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1985)
- State v. Connell, 478 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)