MICHAEL CHARLES ELLISON, 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.
Michael Charles Ellison was initially sentenced to 30 years, which was reversed on appeal because the trial court failed to provide written reasons for the departure sentence. Upon remand, the trial court resentenced him to 30 years again without him being present, then a third sentencing occurred. The court held that because the case remained in the appellate pipeline and the sentence was not final, Pope v. State barred the trial court from imposing a departure sentence upon remand, requiring instead a guidelines sentence.
The court held that because Ellison's case remained in the appellate pipeline until a lawful resentencing occurred on April 24, 1991, and Pope v. State held that when a departure sentence is reversed for lack of written reasons the appellate court must remand with no possibility of departure, Ellison is legally entitled to be sentenced within the guidelines. The departure sentence is vacated and the case is remanded for imposition of a guideline sentence.
[1] A departure sentence imposed without written reasons, as required by Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(ll), is invalid.
[2] A defendant has a fundamental right to be present at resentencing proceedings.
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“Because appellant's departure sentence was not final prior to Pope v. State, appellant is legally entitled to be sentenced within the guidelines.”
Establishes that because the case remained in the appellate pipeline, Pope v. State's requirement that remands preclude departure applies to Ellison's sentencing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEllison was initially sentenced to 30 years in prison on June 16, 1988, when the guideline range was 5.5 to 7 years. The trial court failed to provide…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.701(D)(11) cases and more on FLexlaw
RICHARDSON, E., Associate Judge.
Michael Charles Ellison appeals a departure sentence rendered on April 24, 1991. We reverse.
Appellant was initially sentenced to thirty years in prison on June 16, 1988. The guideline scoresheet indicated a presumptive sentence range of five and one-half years to seven years in prison. The trial court failed to provide written reasons for departure as required by Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)(ll).
After a timely appeal, this court vacated the departure sentence and remanded the case to the trial court for resentencing. See Ellison v. State, 545 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). In accordance with the mandate, the trial court prepared written reasons for departure and again sentenced appellant to thirty years in prison. This resentencing occurred on January 8, 1990. However, appellant was not notified of the resentencing and was not present. Because appellant was not aware of his resentencing, a timely appeal was not filed.
On January 9, 1991, appellant filed in the trial court a motion for post-conviction relief. Appellant alleged that the January 8, 1990 resentencing was illegal and that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel. By order dated March 27, 1991, the trial court ruled that appellant was legally entitled to be present at resentencing. Therefore, on April 24, 1991 resentencing occurred in the presence of appellant and his legal counsel. For the third time, the trial court sentenced appellant to thirty years in prison. Written reasons for departure used by the trial court during the January 8, 1990 sentencing were used once again. Appellant has timely appealed this sentence.
Prior to appellant’s third sentencing, the Florida Supreme Court issued its ruling in Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla.1990). The court held that when a departure sentence is reversed because the trial court failed to provide written reasons for departure, the appellate court must remand for resentencing with no possibility of departure from the guidelines.
Appellant was not legally resen-tenced until April 24, 1991. It was fundamental error to resentence appellant in his absence. This is true even though he received the exact same sentence and counsel was present at the hearing. See Keller v. State, 432 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Butler v. State, 412 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); McCrae v. State, 400 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Appellant’s case remained in the “pipeline” until a lawful re-sentencing occurred. Love v. State, 559 So. 2d 198 (Fla.1990). Clearly, the departure sentence of January 8, 1990 remained open to attack until the trial judge reimposed sentence in accordance with this court’s mandate.
Because appellant’s departure sentence was not final prior to Pope v. State, appellant is legally entitled to be sentenced within the guidelines.
SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED for imposition of guideline sentence.
GOSHORN, C.J., and COBB, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dougherty v. State, 785 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…ilt or the result of a successful 3.850 challenge.” Barcelo v. State, 774 So. 2d 895, 896 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). With the exception of sentence corrections, it is fundamental error to resentence a defendant in his or her absence. See Ellison v. State, 593 So. 2d 1205, 1206 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Keller v. State, 432 So. 2d 672, 673 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Walker v. State, 284 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972). Here, appellant’s original sentence was above the sentence that could be imposed without departure under the 19…
Authorities Cited
- Pope v. State, 561 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 1990)
- Love v. State, 559 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 1990)
- Keller v. State, 432 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Ellison v. State, 545 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Wesley v. State, 400 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- McCRAE v. State, 400 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Latson v. State, 412 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Mellie D. Butler v. State, 412 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)