STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
CHRISTOPHER C. BATTLE, 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 State appeals a sentencing decision where the trial court failed to impose mandatory minimum sentences for cocaine sales within 1,000 feet of a school. The court reverses and remands, holding that the applicable statute is the one in effect when the crime was committed, not a later amendment, and permits the defendant to withdraw his plea if he relied on a mistaken assumption about sentencing.
The trial court was required to impose minimum sentences based on section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1993), because criminal statutes are interpreted according to the law in effect at the time of the offense. The sentences are reversed and remanded, with the defendant permitted to withdraw his plea on remand if he entered it under the assumption he would not receive a minimum sentence.
[1] The controlling statute for punishment is the statute in effect at the time of the commission of the crime.
[2] An amendment to a criminal statute does not affect the prosecution of, or the punishment for, a crime committed before the amendment.
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“It is well established that an amendment to a criminal statute does not affect the prosecution of, or the punishment for, a crime committed before the amendment.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that the applicable statute is the one in effect at the time of the offense, not subsequent amendments
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChristopher Battle was charged with possession of cocaine and two counts of selling or delivering cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school based on event…
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 Retroactivity Of Statutory Amendments cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Judge.
The state appeals the sentences imposed on Christopher C. Battle, arguing that the trial court was required to impose a three-year minimum sentence because Mr. Battle was convicted of selling cocaine within 1000 feet of a school. We reverse the sentences, but provide Mr. Battle with the opportunity to withdraw his plea on remand.
For events occurring on November 4,1993, the state filed an information charging Mr. Battle with one count of possession of cocaine and two counts of selling or delivering co- came 'within 1000 feet of a school. Mr. Battle pleaded nolo contendere in exchange for concurrent sentences of five years’ imprisonment on the possession of cocaine charge and seven years’ imprisonment on the two counts of selling or delivering.
At the sentencing hearing in March 1994, the state requested two concurrent three-year minimum sentences on the selling or delivering counts. The trial court believed that the legislature had eliminated such minimum sentences in January 1994 and that it was obligated to impose the newer, more lenient, sentencing.
It is well established that an amendment to a criminal statute does not affect the prosecution of, or the punishment for, a crime committed before the amendment. Castle v. State, 305 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974), affirmed, 330 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1976). The controlling statute for punishment is the statute in effect at the time of the commission of the crime. Gilford v. State, 487 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Thus, the trial court was required to sentence based on section 893.13(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1993) (see note following statute; section 22, ch. 93-406, Laws of Florida).1 Because Mr. Battle was selling cocaine, rather than purchasing it, the holding in State v. Randall, 627 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), would appear to require the imposition of a minimum sentence. In a lengthy motion for rehearing, Mr. Battle has attempted to distinguish Randall based on a 1993 amendment to chapter 397, Florida Statutes. Because this argument was never made to the trial court or to this court prior to the motion for rehearing, we decline to address it at this time. Mr. Battle is free to make this argument at the time of his sentencing on remand.
It is apparent from the record that Mr. Battle may have entered his plea on the assumption that he would not receive a minimum sentence. If that is the case, on remand he may have the option of withdrawing his plea.
Reversed and remanded.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and QUINCE, J., concur. . We note that the trial court did not realize the limited nature of the statutory amendment. Although the legislature eliminated the minimum sentence for purchase near a school, it did not eliminate this sentence for sale or delivery during most hours of the day within 1000 feet of a school. See § 893.13(l)(c), Fla.Stat. (1993).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lamore v. State, 86 So. 3d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…ller clearly and unambiguously addresses Lamore’s claim. Miller, 77 So. 3d at 889, recognizes the principle that defendants are to be sentenced in accordance with the statutes in effect at the time they committed their offenses. See State v. Battle, 661 So. 2d 38, 39 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (“It is well established that an amendment to a criminal statute does not affect the prosecution of, or the punishment for, a crime committed before the amendment.”); see also art. X, § 9, Fla. Const. (“Repeal or amendment [*5…
-
Deatherage v. State, 15 So. 3d 775 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…educed the maximum penalty for his crime); Santiago v. State, 731 So. 2d 787, 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (holding that an amendment changing the predicate for a felony offense under section 322.34 did not apply retroactively); see also State v. Battle, 661 So. 2d 38, 39 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (“The controlling statute for punishment is the statute in effect at the time of the commission of the crime.”). In his motion, Deatherage alleged that he was sentenced on January 22, 2008, necessarily indicating that the off…
-
Ahmad Gary Sheaffers v. State, 243 So. 3d 518 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Darion Northrup Castle v. State, 330 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1976)
- Darion Northrup Castle v. State, 305 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Gilford v. State, 487 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- State v. Randall, 627 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)