STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
THEODORE A. BASSETT, JR., 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.
The State of Florida petitioned for certiorari review of a trial judge's decision to impose a life sentence instead of the death penalty in a first-degree murder case where the jury had recommended death. The court denied the petition, holding that once a sentence is imposed, jeopardy attaches and appellate courts cannot review or correct sentencing decisions in capital cases, even if the judge allegedly erred in refusing to impose death.
The State does not have the right to seek certiorari review of a sentence imposed in a capital case. Once sentence is imposed, jeopardy attaches, and appellate courts cannot correct a sentencing judge's decision to impose a lighter sentence than death, even if the judge allegedly erred in legal ruling.
[1] The state's right to appeal a sentence is generally limited to downward departures from recommended sentencing guideline sentences.
[2] First-degree murder cases are not included within the sentencing guidelines, precluding state appeals of sentences in such cases based on guideline departures.
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“The right of the state to appeal a sentence was recently created by the statute which created the sentencing guidelines and generally permits the state to appeal downward departures from the recommended guideline sentence. Indeed, state appeals of sentences are limited to that category. First degree murder cases are not included within the sentencing guidelines, so the state cannot assert a right to appéal on that basis.”
Establishes that the State's statutory appeal rights are limited to guideline-sentence cases, and first-degree murder is excluded.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondent Bassett was convicted of two first-degree murder charges. The jury recommended the death penalty. The trial judge exercised his discretion …
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 Interlocutory Rulings cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
The state seeks our review by certiorari the sentence of a circuit judge in a first degree murder case. The respondent was convicted of two first degree murder charges and the jury recommended the death penalty. The judge overrode the recommendation and sentenced respondent to life in prison. The state now seeks review of that sentence.
The right of the state to appeal a sentence was recently created by the statute which created the sentencing guidelines and generally permits the state to appeal downward departures from the recommended guideline sentence. Indeed, state appeals of sentences are limited to that category. First degree murder cases are not included within the sentencing guidelines, so the state cannot assert a right to appéal on that basis. See also State v. Pettis, 520 So. 2d 250 (Fla.1988) which discusses the right of the state to petition for certiorari where it lacks statutory authority to appeal.
The state cites Brown v. State, 521 So. 2d 110 (Fla.1988), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 270, 102 L.Ed.2d 258 (1988) as authority for this court to take jurisdiction and grant unspecified relief.1 We do not read Brown as permitting certiorari review of a sentence. To the contrary, we read it as forbidding such a review. In Brown, our supreme court held that jeopardy attaches when sentence is imposed and that even if the sentencing judge was mistaken in his legal ruling as to the inapplicability of the death penalty, that error cannot be corrected by an appellate court ordering the death penalty. See also Arizona v. Rumsey, 467 U.S. 203, 104 S.Ct. 2305, 81 L.Ed.2d 164 (1984) and Bullington v. Missouri, 451 U.S. 430, 101 S.Ct. 1852, 68 L.Ed.2d 270 (1981).
Perhaps the state was misled by the statement in Brown that the state can seek certiorari from an erroneous interlocutory ruling of the sentencing court that it is barred from imposing the death penalty. Upon a close reading of Brown, it is clear that the state must petition for the writ before sentence is imposed, and cannot seek relief after the life sentence is imposed. Brown effectively establishes a rule that a life sentence in a capital case cannot be appealed, any more than a directed verdict in a criminal case can be appealed.
CERTIORARI DENIED.
DANIEL, C.J., and HARRIS, J., concur. . The state seeks the following relief:
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Honorable Court issue an Order to Show Cause upon the Respondent, grant a Writ of Common Law Certiorari, vacate the decision of the trial court rendered November 17, 1989, remand the cause to the trial court for the entry of a sentencing order which comports with existing statutory and decisional authority, and grant such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate.
We assume the state is requesting this court to order the death penalty imposed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bullington v. Missouri, 451 U.S. 430 (U.S. 1981)
- State v. Pettis, 520 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1988)
- Arizona v. Rumsey, 467 U.S. 203 (U.S. 1984)
- Madsen v. State, 521 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 1988)