ALVIN DAVIS, 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.
Davis appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. The court reverses and remands because Davis was sentenced under the 1983 sentencing guidelines, which were held unconstitutional in Smith v. State until the legislature adopted them on July 1, 1984. Davis must be resentenced under the pre-guidelines procedure, and he is entitled to seek parole.
Davis is entitled to resentencing because sentences imposed under the illegal 1983 guidelines must be corrected, and a defendant cannot acquiesce in an illegal sentence. Additionally, without resentencing, Davis will be denied the right to seek parole, which was an integral component of the valid sentencing guidelines. On remand, Davis must be resentenced as if the guidelines had never been enacted, but cannot receive a sentence longer than twenty-two years absent new misconduct.
[1] Sentencing guidelines were constitutionally invalid until adopted by the legislature on July 1, 1984.
[2] A defendant sentenced under invalid sentencing guidelines should be sentenced under the old procedure, which allowed absolute discretion within statutory maximums.
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“a defendant can not acquiesce in an illegal sentence”
Establishes that even if no prejudice resulted, an illegal sentence must be corrected as a matter of law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavis committed an offense, was convicted, and was sentenced to twenty-two years prior to July 1, 1984, when the sentencing guidelines became legally …
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 Parole Eligibility cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Judge.
The defendant, by way of Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.800 and 3.850, appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. We reverse.
In Smith v. State, 537 So. 2d 982 (Fla.1989), the supreme court held that the sentencing guidelines were constitutionally invalid until adopted by the legislature on July 1, 1984. Accordingly, the defendant is correct that his sentence was illegal: he committed the offense, was convicted and sentenced, all prior to that time.
In Smith, the court stated that if the sentencing guidelines were invalid when a defendant was sentenced, then the defendant should have been sentenced under the “old procedure” in which the trial court had absolute discretion to impose a sentence within the statutory maximum; but that under those circumstances, “the defendant would clearly be entitled to seek parole because the elimination of parole was an integral part of the sentencing guidelines legislation.” 537 So. 2d at 987.
The state concedes that the 1983 guidelines under which the defendant was sentenced were illegal, but argues that since the defendant could have received more than his twenty-two year sentence in the absence of the guidelines (a maximum sentence of 40 years), he was not prejudiced by the error and therefore need not be resentenced. We agree with the state that since the trial court departed upward from the guidelines range, the court clearly would not have sentenced the defendant to a lesser sentence than twenty-two years, even had it not applied the guidelines. However, resentencing is required because the guidelines sentence imposed was clearly illegal under Smith, and because in the absence of resentencing, the defendant will not be permitted to seek parole. As the defendant contends, a defendant can not acquiesce in an illegal sentence. Williams v. State, 500 So. 2d 501 (Fla.1986).
On remand, the defendant should be resentenced “as if the guidelines had never been enacted.” Smith, 537 So. 2d at 987. However, unless the defendant has been “guilty of new misconduct which would justify a greater sentence than was originally imposed,” he cannot be sentenced to a term greater than twenty-two years. See Blackshear v. State, 531 So. 2d 956, 958 (Fla.1988) (where original sentence held illegal, court could not, on resentencing, impose sentence longer than sentence originally imposed in absence of intervening event which would justify a greater sentence).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
ANSTEAD and GUNTHER, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Purvis v. The Honorable Hubert R. Lindsey, 587 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…986). We also reject the state’s contention that petitioner waived his right to contest his illegal sentence because the sentence was the result of a negotiated plea agreement. A defendant cannot acquiesce in an illegal sentence, see Davis v. State, 552 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), and can attack an illegal sentence at any time. See Bouie, 360 So. 2d at 1142; Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.800(a). The cases relied on by the state in its response are distinguishable from the instant case. Finding that the trial court er…
-
Ospina v. State, 579 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…ime and a sentence that is entered pursuant to guidelines which had not been constitutionally enacted is an illegal sentence. Boland v. State, 571 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Dewberry v. State, 570 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Davis v. State, 552 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). In his 3.850 motion defendant also claims that the trial court did not afford [*812] him a right to “allocution” on the capital charge because the jury did not specifically find that he was 18 years of age or older at the time…
-
Wright v. State, 643 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…d that even the defendant in a criminal case cannot agree to, or acquiesce in, an illegal sentence. Williams v. State, 500 So. 2d 501 (Fla.1986) (defendant cannot by agreement confer on court authority to impose an illegal sentence); Davis v. State, 552 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (defendant cannot acquiesce in illegal sentence); Purvis v. Lindsey, 587 So. 2d 638 (1991) (same as Davis; defendant can attack illegal sentence at any time); and Reed v. State, 616 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (defendant canno…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 500 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1986)
- Alphonso P. Smith v. State, 537 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 1989)
- Blackshear v. State, 531 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1988)