EDUARDO CONTRERAS, 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 defendant's sentence, holding that applying sentencing guidelines in effect at time of sentencing (rather than at time of prior offenses) does not violate the ex post facto clause because the punishment for the current offense was not increased.
Applying sentencing guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing to calculate prior record points does not constitute an ex post facto violation when the punishment for the current offense remains unchanged.
[1] Applying sentencing guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing to calculate prior record points does not violate the ex post facto clause when the punishment for the…
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 intelligence“To fall within the ex post facto prohibition, a law must be retrospective — that is 'it must apply to events occurring before its enactment' — and it 'must disadvantage the offender affected by it' ... by altering the definition of criminal conduct or increasing the punishment for the crime.”
Court explaining the two-part test for ex post facto violations, citing Lynce v. Mathis, 519 U.S. 433 (1997).
Eduardo Contreras, Jr. was sentenced for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The trial court used a scoresheet that calculated prior record offen…
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 Ex Post Facto Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
FULMER, Judge.
Eduardo Contreras, Jr. appeals his sentence for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, arguing that utilizing a scoresheet which calculated points for prior record offenses based on the sentencing guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing is an ex post facto violation. He asserts that the trial court should have assessed prior record points based on the guidelines in effect at the time he committed the prior offenses. We affirm.
The trial court properly utilized a scoresheet which included points for prior record offenses based on the guidelines in effect at the time Contreras committed the aggravated assault for which he was being sentenced. See § 921.001(4)(b)2, Fla. Stat. (1997). Applying these guidelines did not increase the punishment from what the penalty was at the time Contreras committed that offense. “To fall within the ex post facto prohibition, a law must be retrospective — that is ‘it must apply to events occurring before its enactment’ — and it ‘must disadvantage the offender affected by it’ ... by altering the definition of criminal conduct or increasing the punishment for the crime.” Lynce v. Mathis, 519 U.S. 433, 441, 117 S.Ct. 891, 137 L.Ed.2d 63 (1997) (citations omitted). Applying this principle, we conclude there was no ex post facto violation here.
Affirmed.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and SALCINES, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Knarich v. State, 866 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…83. Thus, if a 1983 Florida offense is analogous to a 1983 military offense, the offense is scored as prior record; then, the prior record is scored at the severity level shown on the current sentencing guidelines scoresheet. See Contreras v. State, 749 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (concluding that it was proper to score prior record points based on guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing on the current offense). By way of example, the State seeks to compare 1983 and 1984 military convictions to the…
-
Day v. State, 242 So. 3d 359 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
-
Darius Q. Johnson v. State, 263 So. 3d 760 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Lynce v. Mathis, 519 U.S. 433 (U.S. 1997)