ANTHONY A. STUART, 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 summary denial of Stuart's motion to correct an illegal sentence, holding that the date of offense, not the date of sentencing, determines which sentencing guidelines apply.
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 intelligenceStuart was sentenced on June 23, 1998, for offenses he alleged occurred in February and November 1996. The trial court denied his motion to correct il…
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 Illegal Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Anthony A. Stuart appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Stuart was sentenced on June 23,1998, for offenses he alleges occurred in February and November 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 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 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 Stuart 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 Stuart must be resenteneed 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.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
PARKER, A.C.J., and FULMER and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stuart v. State, 869 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…rt’s right to file a new motion once his appeals were resolved. SALCINES AND KELLY, JJ„ Concur. . Stuart has three prior appeals related to the present consolidated appeals. See Stuart v. State, 771 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Stuart v. State, 765 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); and Stuart v. State, 763 So. 2d 319 (Fla.2000).…
Authorities Cited
- Smith v. State, 761 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Heggs v. State, 718 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)