STEVEN BROOKS REED, 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.
Steven Reed appeals sentences imposed after his nolo contendere pleas to multiple burglaries and dealing in stolen property. The court determines he is entitled to resentencing under the 1994 guidelines for cases where offenses occurred within a specific window period (October 1, 1995 to May 24, 1997), but affirms sentences for cases falling outside that period and rejects his claim of trial court error regarding downward departure sentences.
Reed is entitled to resentencing under the 1994 guidelines only for cases in which offenses occurred between October 1, 1995, and May 24, 1997, and constitute departure sentences under the 1994 guidelines. For case numbers 98-346 and 98-347, where offenses occurred outside the window period, sentences are affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to impose a downward departure sentence.
[1] A defendant is entitled to resentencing under the 1994 guidelines if the offenses occurred between October 1, 1995, and May 24, 1997, and the sentences constitute departu…
[2] Sentences imposed for offenses committed outside the period of October 1, 1995, to May 24, 1997, are not subject to resentencing under the 1994 guidelines.
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“He is entitled to relief in the cases in which his offenses occurred within the period for challenging the statute, between October 1, 1995, and May 24, 1997, if the sentences in those cases constitute departure sentences under the 1994 guidelines.”
Establishes the retroactive application window for resentencing under the 1994 guidelines
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceReed entered nolo contendere pleas in five separate cases involving burglaries and dealing in stolen property. The offenses in case numbers 98-564 and…
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 Unconstitutional Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
GREEN, Judge.
Steven Reed appeals from the sentences imposed upon him in five separate cases following his entry of nolo contendere pleas to several burglaries and dealing in stolen property. He argues that, because the 1995 sentencing guidelines have been declared unconstitutional, he is entitled to resentencing under the 1994 guidelines. See Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000). Reed is partly correct. He is entitled to relief in the cases in which his offenses occurred within the period for challenging the statute,1 between October 1, 1995, and May 24, 1997, if the sentences in those cases constitute departure sentences under the 1994 guidelines. See Smith v. State, 761 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Therefore, we remand case numbers 98-564, 98-566, and 98-11670 to the trial court for recalculation of Reed’s scoresheet under the 1994 guidelines. Because the dates of the offenses in case numbers 98-346 and 98-347 do not fall within the window period defined in Smith, we affirm the sentences in those cases.
Reed also argues that the trial court erred in failing to give him a downward departure sentence. He claims he met the criteria under section 921.0016(4)(i) and (j), Florida Statutes (1995), permitting the mitigation of a sentence when the defendant has cooperated with police and when the offense was an isolated incident for which the defendant has shown remorse. Whether to impose a departure sentence is a matter within the trial court’s sound discretion. See Banks v. State, 732 So. 2d 1065 (Fla.1999) (stating that the decision whether to depart is a judgment call based on the totality of the circumstances which will be sustained on review absent an abuse of discretion). Reed has failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion in this case.
Accordingly, we affirm the sentences in case numbers 98-346 and 98-347 and remand case numbers 98-564, 98-566, and 98-11670 to the trial court for reconsideration of the sentences under the 1994 guidelines.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part with directions.
THREADGILL, A.C.J., and WHATLEY, J., Concur. . The offenses occurred: in case number 98-346, between July 20 and August 20, 1997; in case number 98-347, between November 10 and 24, 1997; in case number 98-564, between July 20 and October 2, 1996; and in case number 98-11670, between May 10 and December 11, 1996.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Scott v. State, 145 So. 3d 882 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…CURIAM. Affirmed. See Lee v. State, 679 So. 2d 1158 (Fla.1996); Hughes v. State, 22 So. 3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Scott v. State, 16 So. 3d 140 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (table decision); O’Neill v. State, 6 So. 3d 630 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Reed v. State, 761 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Paul v. State, 830 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Edwards v. State, 830 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). NORTHCUTT, WALLACE, and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.…
-
Chestel R. Thorson v. State, 197 So. 3d 628 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…A 2009); Coughlin v. State, 932 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (en banc); Carpenter v. State, 884 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Shortridge v. State, 884 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Boyd v. State, 880 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Reed v. State, 761 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Paris v. State, 156 So. 3d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015); Williams v. State, 907 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Pruitt v. State, 801 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). LaROSE, SLEET, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.…
-
Starling T. Middleton v. State, 210 So. 3d 87 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Lee v. State, 679 So. 2d 1158 (Fla.1996); Shaw v. State, 780 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Reed v. State, 761 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Paris v. State, 156 So. 3d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015); Rutherford v. State, 93 So. 3d 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Martell v. State, 676 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). CASANUEVA, KHOUZAM, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Donald B. Banks v. State, 732 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 1999)
- Smith v. State, 761 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)