DENNIS LEON MARTINO, 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.
Dennis Martino appeals the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentences imposed under Florida's 1995 sentencing guidelines, which were found unconstitutional under the single-subject rule in Heggs v. State. The court holds that Martino may raise the Heggs issue in post-conviction proceedings and vacates sentences for crimes committed within the applicable window period, remanding for re-sentencing under the 1994 guidelines.
Sentences imposed under the unconstitutional 1995 guidelines for crimes committed after October 1, 1995 within the applicable window period are illegal and subject to correction. The Heggs constitutional issue may properly be raised in a post-conviction motion under Rule 3.800(a). Martino's sentences for offenses committed before October 1, 1995 are affirmed, but sentences for offenses in cases 96-1170 and 95-25333 are vacated.
[1] Sentences imposed under the 1995 version of the sentencing guidelines are invalid if the 1995 guidelines were found to be unconstitutional as violative of the single-subj…
[2] Persons sentenced under unconstitutional guidelines for crimes committed after October 1, 1995, are entitled to seek relief.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“He is correct that sentences for some of his offenses are invalid because they were imposed under the 1995 version of the sentencing guidelines. The 1995 version was found to be unconstitutional as violative of the single-subject rule in Heggs v. State.”
Establishes the core holding that sentences under the unconstitutional 1995 guidelines are invalid
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMartino was sentenced under the 1995 version of Florida's sentencing guidelines for four offenses. Two offenses occurred before October 1, 1995 (cases…
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 Single Subject Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
PETERSON, J.
Dennis Leon Martino appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). He is correct that sentences for some of his offenses are invalid because they were imposed under the 1995 version of the sentencing guidelines. The 1995 version was found to be unconstitutional as violative of the single-subject rule in Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000). Heggs also found that persons sentenced under the invalid guidelines for crimes committed after October 1, 1995 were entitled to seek relief. The court declined to indicate the date of the deadline for seeking relief, but district court opinions have chosen two different dates. In Heggs v. State, 718 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) and Diaz v. State, 752 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) May 24, 1997 was chosen. In Bortel v. State, 743 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) October 1, 1996 was chosen. Initially, we affirm the sentence in two of his four offenses. Specifically, the offenses in cases 95-17654 and 95-17657 took place before October 1, 1995 and we, thus, affirm the sentences imposed.
However, the offenses in case number 96-1170 took place on October 9, 1995 and in case number 95-25333 took place on October 26, 1995 and are within all of the window periods chosen by the district courts, and we must vacate the sentences in those cases.
One other issue remains. Is Martino entitled to raise the Heggs issue in a motion for post-conviction relief? The supreme court did not discuss this issue. However, two of our sister courts have found that the issue is properly raised in a post-conviction proceeding. See Battle v. State, 755 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Ramirez v. State, 752 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). We choose to follow those decisions. Our decision is buttressed by an analysis of Freshman v. State, 730 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) which con- eluded that a defendant was entitled to Rule 3.800(a) relief when he received an habitualized sentence that relied in part upon chapter 89-280. That chapter was held to have violated the single-subject rule in State v. Johnson, 616 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1993).
We find that the Heggs issue may be raised in a motion for post-conviction relief, vacate Martino’s sentences in cases 96-1170 and 95-25333 and remand for re-sentencing under the 1994 version of the sentencing guidelines, the version enacted prior to chapter 95-184, Laws of Florida.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED.
THOMPSON and SAWAYA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. State, 767 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…persons adversely affected by the amendment, whose sentence could not have been imposed under the 1994 guidelines without departure reasons, are entitled to be re-sentenced. This issue can be raised in a postconviction motion. See Martino v. State, 759 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 5 th DCA 2000)(sentences imposed under the 1995 version of the guidelines are invalid and issue can be raised in postconviction motion); Griffis v. State, 755 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 5 th DCA 2000). Defendant has alleged that the offense in questio…
-
Higbee v. State, 762 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…r sentence than he would have received under the 1994 guidelines. He-accordingly asks to be resentenced under the valid guidelines in effect at the time of his offenses. Higbee’s claim is cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion. See Martino v. State, 759 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). The trial court denied relief on the ground that Higbee was sentenced on June 24, 1998, outside the window set forth by this court in Heggs v. State, 718 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), certified question answered, 759 So. 2d 620…
-
Levory W. Hickmon v. State, 766 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…S and PLEUS, JJ., concur. . In Lancaster v. State, 764 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), this court addressed the difference in the requirements of rule 3.800(a) motions and rule 3.850 motions, vis a vis Heggs claims. In contrast, Martino v. State, 759 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), this court, basically without discussing why, considered a Heggs issue in a rule 3.800(a) motion. The second district also did so in Higbee v. State, 762 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), by relying upon Martino. The problem is tha…
Authorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- State v. Johnson, 616 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1993)
- Heggs v. State, 718 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Bortel v. State, 743 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Diaz v. State, 752 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Freshman v. State, 730 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Rudolfo Ramirez v. State, 752 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Wilbon v. State, 752 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Deloris Berlin v. Harrell Reid, 755 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)