PATRICK JOSEPH MORGANTI, 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.
A trial court cannot resentence a defendant to depart from sentencing guidelines on remand if the only initial reason for departure was later invalidated, even if new valid reasons existed at the original sentencing.
The initial reason for a departure sentence was later held invalid by the Supreme Court. The defendant sought to resentence based on new, valid reason…
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 Remand For Resentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
BARKETT, Justice.
We have for review Morganti v. State, 510 So. 2d 1182, 1184 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), which certified the following question of great public importance:
Whether, when the sole reason initially given for departure from the Guidelines was held to be valid by appellate courts at the time of sentencing but is subsequently held invalid by the Supreme Court, the trial court may on remand again depart from the Guidelines, if the new reasons given existed at the time of the original sentencing and are valid reasons for departure.
We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We have answered the question in the negative in Shull v. Dugger, 515 So. 2d 748 (Fla.1987), and today reaffirm that holding. Accordingly, the opinion below is quashed and this cause is remanded for proceedings consistent with Shull. Because no valid reasons remain for the departure sentence in this instance, the district court on remand shall direct that petitioner be sentenced within the guidelines.
It is so ordered.
MCDONALD, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morganti v. State, 573 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 1991)…he trial court sentenced Morganti to fifteen years’ incarceration. The district court of appeal affirmed, Morganti v. State, 510 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), but we reversed and remanded for resentencing within the guidelines. Morganti v. State, 524 So. 2d 641 (Fla.1988). The sentencing guidelines range for Morganti for this offense was five and one-half to seven years’ incarceration. In sentencing Morganti for the third time, the trial judge imposed a sentence of five and one-half years’ imprisonment, ei…
-
Morganti v. State, 557 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…from sentences imposed following a violation of probation. The previously reversed sentences were for thirty and fifteen years incarceration. Morganti v. State, 498 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), approved, 509 So. 2d 929 (1987); Morganti v. State, 524 So. 2d 641 (Fla.1988). Here, the sentence was a term of five and one-half years (5V2) in prison and a ten thousand dollar ($10,000) fine followed by eighteen (18) months additional probation. Appellant was also directed to pay the fine as a condition of probat…1 / 2
-
Slay v. State, 534 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…rture in the second sentencing is contrary to Shull v. Dugger, 515 So. 2d 748 (Fla.1987). Slay has asserted correctly that the trial court may not, on remand, exceed the guidelines by relying on new reasons for departure. See also Morganti v. State, 524 So. 2d 641 (Fla.1988); Brumley v. State, 520 So. 2d 275 (Fla.1988); Hays v. State, 526 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). The State has conceded this point. However, given the facts of this case, the record supports an affirmance of Slay’s departure sentence. In…
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
- Shull v. Dugger, 515 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 1987)
- Hughes v. State, 510 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Morganti v. State, 510 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)