RONNIE DEWEY BROWN, 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.
Ronnie Dewey Brown appeals the denial of his motion to correct an allegedly illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. The court affirms, holding that Brown was properly resentenced under the valid version of the sentencing guidelines after his initial sentence was reversed on direct appeal.
The court affirmed the denial of Brown's motion to correct illegal sentence, holding that Brown was properly resentenced under the valid version of the guidelines in effect at the time of his 1985 resentencing and that the subsequent invalidation of the original departure reasons in unrelated decisions does not constitute fundamental or constitutional error warranting post-conviction relief.
[1] A defendant who commits a crime prior to the effective date of sentencing guidelines and elects guideline sentencing is subject to the guidelines in effect at the time of…
[2] A defendant electing guideline sentencing after July 1, 1984, is subject to the amended, effective version of the guidelines.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“When a defendant commits a crime prior to the effective date of the guidelines and then elects guideline sentencing, the guidelines in effect at the time of the election are controlling.”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that the guidelines in effect at the time of a defendant's election to guideline sentencing govern, not the guidelines in effect at the time of the crime.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrown pleaded nolo contendere in 1984 to multiple felonies including aggravated battery, aggravated assault, carrying a concealed weapon, armed burgla…
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 Constitutionality Of Sentencing Guidelines cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Senior Judge.
Ronnie Dewey Brown appeals the denial, without a hearing, of his Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.800 motion to correct illegal sentence. We affirm.
Brown entered a plea of nolo contendere to charges of aggravated battery, aggravated assault and carrying a concealed weapon, and to armed burglary of a structure, trafficking in firearms and grand theft. All of the charged offenses occurred in 1983. When Brown tendered his plea on February 17,1984, he elected guideline sentencing under the version of the guidelines then in effect. On appeal this court upheld the departure but reversed the imposition of two consecutive mandatory minimum sentences. Appellant’s affirmative selection of guideline sentencing was upheld. Brown v. State, 464 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). The present appeal relates to Brown’s motion for relief filed after resentencing on remand in 1985.
In his motion Brown argues that his initial sentence was illegal. He concedes that when he was resentenced in 1985 following his direct appeal, he once again affirmatively elected to be sentenced under the guidelines, and argues that he should have been sentenced under the guidelines in effect on that date. This is in accord with the holding of Smith v. State, 537 So. 2d 982 (Fla.1989). Smith held that the sentencing guidelines under which Brown was originally sentenced were unconstitutional prior to July 1, 1984. When a defendant commits a crime prior to the effective date of the guidelines and then elects guideline sentencing, the guidelines in ef- feet at the time of the election are controlling. Connell v. Wade, 588 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 1989). And any defendant electing guideline sentencing after July 1, 1984 elects the amended, effective version of the guidelines. Tyner v. State, 545 So. 2d 961, 963, n. 3 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).
The record establishes that Brown was in fact resentenced under the valid version of the guidelines. Further, the fact that the original reasons for departure were subsequently held to be invalid in unrelated decisions does not constitute fundamental or constitutional error warranting post conviction relief on the grounds of sentence illegality. McCuiston v. State, 507 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), approved 534 So. 2d 1144 (Fla.1989). The trial court’s denial of relief on Brown’s Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.800 motion to correct illegal sentence is therefore AFFIRMED.
SMITH and MINER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harden v. State, 595 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…amental ... change as will cast serious doubt on the veracity or integrity of ... [the] original trial proceeding,” 507 So. 2d at 1188, and “was not illegal, per se, as being above the statutory maximum,” 534 So. 2d at 1147. See also Brown v. State, 588 So. 2d 651, 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (“[T]he fact that the original reasons for departure were subsequently held to be invalid in unrelated decisions does not constitute fundamental or constitutional error warranting post conviction relief on the grounds of sen…
Authorities Cited
- Alphonso P. Smith v. State, 537 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 1989)
- State v. Hall, 534 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 1988)
- McCUISTON v. State, 507 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Brown v. State, 464 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Tyner v. State, 545 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Connell v. Wade, 538 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 1989)