MONDRELL D. GEORGE, 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.
The court reversed the denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence, holding that the date of offense, not the date of sentencing, determines which sentencing guidelines apply to a defendant's sentence.
The date of offense, not the date of sentencing, is the relevant date for determining which sentencing guidelines apply to a defendant's sentence.
[1] The date of offense, not the date of sentencing, determines which sentencing guidelines apply when challenging a sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a…
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 intelligenceMondrell George was sentenced on September 27, 1997, under the 1995 sentencing guidelines for an offense that occurred on November 11, 1996. The trial…
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 1995 Sentencing Guidelines cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Mondrell George appeals the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Mr. George was sentenced on September 27, 1997, under the 1995 sentencing guidelines for an offense that apparently occurred on November 11, 1996. The trial court denied the motion, relying on our decision in Heggs v. State, 718 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), that suggested that the relevant window to challenge the 1995 sentencing guidelines was determined by the date of sentencing. Because it is now clear that the date of offense is the relevant date, we must reverse and remand for further consideration of this motion. See Smith v. State, 761 So. 2d 419, 421 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
We remand for the trial court to determine whether Mr. George in fact committed his offenses within the Heggs window and, if so, whether his sentence could not have been imposed under the 1994 guidelines without a departure. If the answers to both of these questions are affirmative, then Mr. George must be resentenced in accordance with the valid guidelines in existence at the time he committed his offenses. If the court enters an order de- daring resentencing unnecessary, it should attach all documents necessary to reach that conclusion. See Smith, 761 So. 2d at 422.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and WHATLEY and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Smith v. State, 761 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Heggs v. State, 718 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)