WALLACE L. WILLIAMS, JR., 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed conviction for cocaine sale near school but remanded for resentencing because trial court may not have understood its discretionary sentencing authority under Section 775.084(4)(a)1.
A trial court's life sentence without parole for drug sale near school must be remanded for resentencing where the record does not clearly show the court understood its discretionary sentencing power.
[1] Sentencing under Florida Statute Section 775.084(4)(a)1. …
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWallace L. Williams, Jr. was convicted of sale, purchase, manufacture or delivery of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school and sentenced as a habitual…
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 Permissive Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Wallace L. Williams, Jr., appeals his conviction for sale, purchase, manufacture or delivery of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school and habitual felony offender sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole. We affirm appellant’s conviction but remand the case to the trial court for resentencing.
As to the first issue raised on appeal, we find that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying defense counsel’s request for a jury view of the crime scene. We also reject appellant’s argument that a sentence of life imprisonment in this case constitutes cruel or unusual punishment under Article I, Section 17 of the Florida Constitution. This court has recently decided this issue adversely to appellant’s position in Hale v. State, 600 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), rejecting the argument that the “cruel or unusual” punishment clause in the Florida Constitution requires (or allows) proportionality review in non-death penalty cases.
Although we affirm appellant’s conviction, we note that the Florida Supreme Court has ruled that sentencing under Section 775.084(4)(a)l. is permissive, not mandatory. Burdick v. State, 594 So. 2d 267 (Fla.1992). As we are unable to discern whether the trial court was aware of his discretionary power in sentencing, we remand the case for resentencing.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for resentencing.
SHIVERS, MINER and ALLEN, JJ., concur.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is hereby denied. However, we hereby certify to the Florida Supreme Court the following question of great public importance:
DOES ARTICLE I, SECTION 17 OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION PERMIT AN APPELLATE COURT TO UNDERTAKE PROPORTIONALITY REVIEW OF A NON-DEATH PENALTY SENTENCE?
MINER, ALLEN and MICKLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 630 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 1993)…PER CURIAM. We have for review Williams v. State, 614 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), in which the district court certified the following question as one of great public importance: “Does article I, section 17 of the Florida Constitution permit an appellate court to undertake proportionality review of a non-death…
Authorities Cited
- Burdick v. State, 594 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1992)
- Hale v. State, 600 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)