LEONARDO MORALES, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
The court granted the state's motion for rehearing, withdrawing a prior opinion that had vacated the defendant's sentence. This decision was based on intervening Florida Supreme Court rulings establishing that the sentencing guideline rule applied prospectively only.
No, the rule in Ree v. State applies prospectively only to sentences imposed after July 19, 1990. Therefore, Ree does not apply to the defendant's sentence imposed in 1986.
[1] Decisions of the Florida Supreme Court applying intervening decisions prospectively only to sentences imposed after a specific date apply to cases where the sentence was…
[2] A prior appellate decision may be disregarded to avoid manifest injustice, even if it would otherwise be binding under the law of the case doctrine.
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“These intervening decisions unmistakably hold that the rule of Ree v. State, 565 So. 2d 1329 (Fla.1990), ... applies prospectively only to sentences imposed after the effective date of Ree, to wit: July 19, 1990.”
Establishes the prospective application of the Ree rule.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant's sentence was imposed in 1986. The court had previously vacated this sentence based on the rule in Ree v. State, which required written…
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 Manifest Injustice Exception cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The state’s motion for rehearing is granted and our prior opinion dated December 18, 1990 is hereby withdrawn.
We deny the defendant’s motion to enforce the mandate which was issued pursuant to our prior opinion dated July 3, 1990, Morales v. State, 563 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), because this opinion has since been superseded’ by intervening decisions of the Florida Supreme Court. These intervening decisions unmistakably hold that the rule of Ree v. State, 565 So. 2d 1329 (Fla.1990), [upon which we had vacated the original sentence and remanded for resentencing within the sentencing guidelines because the trial court did not produce written reasons for departure from the sentencing guidelines until a week after the sentencing hearing] applies prospectively only to sentences imposed after the effective date of Ree, to wit: July 19, 1990. State v. Lyles, 576 So. 2d 706 (Fla.1991); State v. Williams, 576 So. 2d 281 (Fla.1991); see also State v. Greene, 575 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). The sentence in the instant case was imposed on April 23, 1986, and, accordingly, under Lyles and Williams, Ree has no application to this case; we had previously thought that Ree could be applied to a so-called “pipe-line” case, as here.
This being so, our prior contrary decision in this case reversing the instant sentence based on the rule announced in Ree is in clear and unmistakable conflict with Lyles and Williams and is, therefore, not the law of the state of Florida. Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431, 433-34 (Fla.1973). We therefore (a) decline to follow our prior decision in this case because to do so would work a manifest injustice, a clear exception to the law of the case doctrine, Brunner Enters. v. Department of Revenue, 452 So. 2d 550, 552-53 (Fla.1984); Strazzulla v. Hendrick, 177 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1965); and (b) decline to enforce the mandate issued pursuant to such prior decision.
The trial court’s reimposition of the original sentence in this case is hereby approved in all respects.
Motion denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morales v. State, 613 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…llowed Ree as clarified, and again imposed a departure sentence. This court denied defendant’s motion to enforce mandate, invoked the manifest injustice exception to the law of the case doctrine, and withdrew the Morales I opinion. Morales v. State, 580 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (Morales II). After conclusion of proceedings in the trial court, Morales appealed. In the meantime the supreme court receded from so much of Ree as indicated that Ree would be given prospective application only. The supreme cour…
-
Butler v. State, 593 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…1989), it would be a manifest injustice to follow such rule in view of the contrary, intervening decision of the Florida Supreme Court in Smith; such manifest injustice constitutes an exception to the law of the case doctrine. See Morales v. State, 580 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). We, accordingly, vacate our prior opinion filed April 3, 1990, recede from Butler, and hold that the reason given by the trial court for departing from the sentencing guidelines is invalid based on Smith; we further reverse the s…
-
Culpepper v. State, 597 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. State v. Lyles, 576 So. 2d 706 (Fla.1991); State v. Williams, 576 So. 2d 281 (Fla.1991); Ree v. State, 565 So. 2d 1329 (Fla.1990); Morales v. State, 580 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).…
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
- Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1973)
- REE v. State, 565 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 1990)
- Strazzulla v. Hendrick, 177 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1965)
- State v. Lyles, 576 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 1991)
- Brunner Enters., Inc. v. Dep't OF Revenue of the State of Fla., 452 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 1984)
- State v. Williams, 576 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 1991)
- Morales v. State, 563 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Lindeman v. State, 563 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- State v. Greene, 575 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Alexander v. Lara, 575 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)