PETER G. WAHL, 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.
Wahl appealed the denial of his motion to correct an allegedly illegal sentence imposed under Florida's sentencing guidelines. The court reversed, holding that because the sentencing guidelines were not constitutionally valid until July 1, 1984, and Wahl's crimes occurred before that date, his guidelines sentence was illegal unless he had affirmatively elected guidelines sentencing.
Wahl's guidelines sentence is illegal because it was imposed for crimes committed before the guidelines became constitutionally valid, and there is no indication that Wahl affirmatively elected to be sentenced under the guidelines. The case is reversed and remanded for resentencing, at which time Wahl may elect either guidelines sentencing or pre-guidelines sentencing.
[1] A sentence imposed under sentencing guidelines for crimes committed before the substantive law of the guidelines was constitutionally valid is illegal, unless the defenda…
[2] Sentencing guidelines were constitutionally invalid until adopted by the legislature on July 1, 1984.
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“In January 1989, the supreme court held that the formulation of the grids and the recommended ranges for sentencing, i.e., the substantive law, of the sentencing guidelines, Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.700 and 3.988, were constitutionally invalid until adopted by the legislature on July 1, 1984.”
Establishes the constitutional invalidity of the guidelines prior to July 1, 1984, which is the foundation for Wahl's illegality claim.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWahl was convicted on August 16, 1984, for crimes committed on January 29, 1984. He was sentenced on September 29, 1984, to two consecutive nine-year …
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 Affirmative Election For Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Peter G. Wahl appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In his motion, Wahl, relying on the recent supreme court decision in Smith v. State, 537 So. 2d 982 (Fla.1989), alleged that his guidelines sentence is illegal. We agree, and reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Wahl has alleged that he was convicted on August 16, 1984, for crimes which occurred on January 29, 1984. He was sentenced, pursuant to the guidelines, on September 29, 1984, to two consecutive nine-year terms, which terms were to run consecutively to sentences previously imposed in Manatee County. The sentences under review represented departures from the guidelines on the basis of Wahl’s habitual offender status, and were previously affirmed by this court without opinion. See Wahl v. State, 478 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
In January 1989, the supreme court held that the formulation of the grids and the recommended ranges for sentencing, i.e., the substantive law, of the sentencing guidelines, Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.700 and 3.988, were constitutionally invalid until adopted by the legislature on July 1, 1984. Wahl contends that because the sentencing guidelines were not in effect at the time his crimes were committed, his sentence is illegal and that he should have been given the opportunity to affirmatively elect guidelines sentencing or not. He argues that if he did not elect guidelines sentencing, he then would be eligible for parole, although he could receive the maximum statutory term of imprisonment under the pre-guidelines sentencing scheme. See Smith, 537 So. 2d at 987.
In the state’s response to this court’s order, it alleges that Wahl is really seeking to attack the trial court’s departure from the recommended sentencing range on the basis of Wahl’s habitual offender status. After this court affirmed Wahl’s sentence, the supreme court invalidated the use of a defendant’s status as a habitual offender, alone, as a reason for departure. See Whitehead v. State, 498 So. 2d 863 (Fla.1986). The supreme court has also held that its decision in Whitehead is not retroactive. See McCuiston v. State, 534 So. 2d 1144 (Fla.1988).
Regardless of Wahl’s motive for his arguments or the effect of a decision in his favor, we must conclude that pursuant to Smith, his sentence under the guidelines, imposed for crimes committed prior to the now effective date thereof, is illegal, unless Wahl affirmatively elected to be so sentenced. Because Wahl’s crimes were committed after October 1, 1983, the prior presumed effective date of the guidelines, there was no discussion of an affirmative election at his sentencing on September 29, 1984. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s denial of Wahl’s 3.800 motion to correct an illegal sentence and remand for resentencing. Upon remand, if Wahl should elect guidelines sentencing, the trial court shall utilize the guidelines in effect at that time. See Smith, 537 So. 2d at 987.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and PARKER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Gibbons v. State, 543 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…Smith leaves undetermined its applicability to postconviction proceedings such as this one, but this court recently approved the use of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) to challenge an “unconstitutional” guideline sentence. Wahl v. State, 543 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). However, we do not construe the decision in Wahl as entitling Gibbons to immediate relief. Instead, we would prefer that Gibbons first present this argument to the trial court, because he may decide it is not worth his while to p…
-
Blackwelder v. State, 570 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…selection, since at the time of the original 1984 sentencing hearing all parties presumably believed a guideline sentence was mandatory for these three offenses. Blackwelder is therefore entitled to correction of these sentences. See Wahl v. State, 543 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 551 So. 2d 463 (Fla.1989). The question thus arises exactly what the trial court must do after remand. In Dupont v. State, 561 So. 2d 460, 461 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), considering a similar request for relief, we stated that…
-
Wahl v. State, 568 So. 2d 1303 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…elected to be so sentenced. Because Wahl’s crimes were committed after October 1, 1983, the prior presumed effective date of the guidelines, there was no discussion of an affirmative election at his sentencing on September 29, 1984. Wahl v. State, 543 So. 2d 299, 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Thus, we remanded for resen-tencing, on which occasion Wahl was to have been given the opportunity to elect sentencing under the guidelines in effect at the time of such election. Id. at 301. On November 29, 1989, Wahl elec…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Whitehead v. State, 498 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1986)
- Alphonso P. Smith v. State, 537 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 1989)
- State v. Hall, 534 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 1988)