TROY WILLIAMS, 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.
Court affirmed kidnapping and sexual battery sentences but reversed forgery sentences as exceeding statutory maximums, rejecting appellant's North Carolina v. Pearce vindictiveness claim where resentencing reflected adjustment to original plea bargain.
Resentencing to a guidelines-permitted sentence that exceeded the original sentence does not violate North Carolina v. Pearce where the record shows no judicial vindictiveness and the court was adjusting the sentence to effectuate the original plea bargain.
[1] Resentencing to a sentence within sentencing guidelines but exceeding the original sentence does not violate North Carolina v. …
[2] Sentences imposed for forgery convictions that exceed the statutory maximum for that degree of crime must be reversed and remanded for resentencing.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was convicted of kidnapping, sexual battery, and forgery. On first appeal, the court remanded for resentencing due to an error in imposing a …
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 Judicial Vindictiveness cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is the second appeal in this case. In the first appeal we remanded for a sentence within the guidelines because of an error in imposing a habitual offender sentence for the appellant’s convictions. Williams v. State, 630 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Upon remand the trial court imposed a sentence within the guidelines permitted range but which was a greater number of years than the original habitualized sentence. The appellant contends this resentencing to a guidelines permitted sentence violated North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969). We disagree because it is clear from the transcript from the resentencing upon remand that the prosecutor and the court were trying to adjust the new guidelines sentence so as to give effect to the original plea bargain in this case. We find no trace of judicial vindictiveness which is the evil proscribed by North Carolina v. Pearce.
We dp agree with the appellant, and as the state properly concedes, that the sentences imposed for his forgery convictions are beyond the statutory maximum for that degree of crime.
We affirm the sentences for kidnapping and sexual battery but reverse the portion of the sentencing order dealing with the three counts of forgery and remand for resentencing of those three counts only.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and THREADGILL and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (U.S. 1969)
- Williams v. State, 630 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)