JENNIFER SCHULTE
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 lower court's denial of a motion to reduce a sentence. The defendant argued her joint sentencing hearing with co-defendants violated her right to individualized sentencing, but the court found this argument lacked legal support and that her sentencing was indeed individualized.
No, the trial court did not err. The court found that the defendant's argument lacked legal support and that the joint sentencing did not deprive her of an individualized determination because the court considered factors specific to her.
[1] The use of death penalty sentencing language by a trial court does not automatically trigger the procedural protections afforded to capital defendants in non-capital case…
[2] A joint sentencing hearing with co-defendants does not violate the constitutional right to individualized sentencing when the trial court separately identifies and consid…
Previewing 2 of 2 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 fundamental error is one that ‘goes to the foundation of the case or goes to the merits of the cause of action.’”
This quote defines the standard for reviewing errors that were not preserved below, which was relevant to Schulte's claim.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJennifer Schulte pleaded guilty to kidnapping, armed robbery, and second-degree murder. Her sentencing hearing was conducted jointly with two co-defen…
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 Aggravating And Mitigating Circumstances cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Jennifer Schulte pleaded guilty to the kidnapping, armed robbery, and second-degree murder of an 86-year-old victim. The trial court conducted Schulte’s sentencing hearing jointly with her two co-defendants. Before announcing Schulte’s sentence, the trial court listed the mitigating and aggravating factors that applied to Schulte specifically, as well as those that applied to all three defendants. The trial court sentenced Schulte to forty years in prison. Schulte moved under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) to have her sentence reduced, arguing that the sentence was too long for her minor role in the crime. The trial court denied the request.
On appeal, Schulte argues the trial court erred by conducting her sentencing hearing jointly with her co-defendants. She claims that, because the trial court used the “language of death penalty sentencings,” Schulte was entitled to the same procedural protections as if it had been a death penalty sentencing. One such protection Schulte points to is a capital defendant’s right to an individualized sentencing determination. Because Schulte failed to raise and preserve this issue below, any error must be fundamental. See Jackson v. State, 983 So. 2d 562, 574 (Fla. 2008). “A fundamental error is one that ‘goes to the foundation of the case or goes to the merits of the cause of action.’” Jaimes v. State, 51 So. 3d 445, 448 (Fla. 2010) (quoting Sanford v. Rubin, 237 So. 3d 134, 137 (Fla. 1970)).
First, Schulte’s arguments lack legal support. She cites nothing for the contention that the trial court’s use of the “language of death penalty sentencings” implicates the procedural protections available to defendants facing the death penalty. Then, Schulte points to Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978), to argue that capital defendants are entitled to individualized sentencing determinations and that her joint sentencing violated that right. But “Lockett and its progeny do not address joint penalty phases or say that the presence of a co-defendant at a capital defendant’s penalty phase trial has any Eighth Amendment implications whatsoever.” Puiatti v. McNeil, 626 F. 3d 1283, 1315 (11th Cir. 2010).
Rather, “[t]he core substantive ingredient in the constitutional right to an ‘individualized sentencing’ is mitigation evidence relevant to the capital defendant as an individual or unique person.” Id. at 1314.
Moreover, on the record before us, the joint sentencing here did not deprive Schulte of an individualized sentencing determination.
The trial court stated the mitigating and aggravating factors it found for Schulte individually before describing those that applied to all three defendants. Because the court considered “mitigation evidence relevant to the . . . defendant as an individual or unique person,” Schulte received an individualized sentencing determination. See id. at 1315.
Thus, Schulte has not shown the trial court erred by conducting a joint sentencing hearing, let alone fundamentally so.
AFFIRMED.
B.L. THOMAS, BILBREY, and NORDBY, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lemos v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2026)…improperly endeavors to amend an indictment. Rather, proceeding in such manner would be an improper exercise of the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction that, if not waived by a defendant, would be violative of due process. See Jaimes v. State, 51 So. 3d 445, 448 (Fla. 2010) (first citing Thornhill; then citing Price v. State, 995 So. 2d 401, 404 (Fla. 2008)). [*7] 3. But here, by affirmatively joining in the State's endeavor to amend the grand jury indictment in order to procure a favorable plea agree…
-
Carissa Parker v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2024)
Authorities Cited
- Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (U.S. 1978)
- Jackson v. State, 983 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 2008)
- Aniceto Jaimes v. State, 51 So. 3d 445 (Fla. 2010)
- Puiatti v. McNEIL, 626 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2010)