WILLIAM A. DAVIS, 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 reversed denial of motion to correct illegal sentence, holding that the date of offense, not date of sentencing, determines which sentencing guidelines apply, and remanded for resentencing consideration under the applicable 1994 guidelines.
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, is the controlling date for determining which sentencing guidelines apply to a defendant's sentence.
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 intelligenceWilliam A. Davis was sentenced in January 1998 under the 1995 sentencing guidelines for an offense that occurred on May 16, 1997.…
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 Heggs Window cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
William A. Davis appeals the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) and 3.850. Mr. Davis was sentenced in January 1998 under the 1995 sentencing guidelines for an offense that apparently occurred on May 16,1997. 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 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
We remand for the trial court to determine whether Mr. Davis 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. Davis must be resentenced in accordance with the valid guidelines in existence at the time he committed his offenses. If the court enters an order declaring 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)