FRANK CHARLES PLUTE, 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 held that the trial court erred in denying the motion to correct an illegal sentence without considering the date of the offense.
Frank Charles Piute challenged his sentence under the 1995 sentencing guidelines, arguing the underlying law violated the Florida Constitution's singl…
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
[*239] PER CURIAM.
Frank Charles Piute challenges the trial court’s order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Piute claims that his sentence under the 1995 sentencing guidelines is illegal because chapter 95-184, Laws of Florida, violated the single-subject provision of article III, section 6, of the Florida Constitution.
The trial court’s order denied Piute relief because his sentencing date did not fall within the window period outlined in Heggs v. State, 718 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). The supreme court recently announced that chapter 95-184, Laws of Florida, violated the single-subject provision of article III, section 6, of the Florida Constitution. See Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000). In its opinion, the court made it clear that the date of the offense is the relevant date for consideration; therefore, we must reverse and remand for further consideration of this motion by the trial court.
We remand for the trial court to determine whether Piute committed his offenses within the applicable window period under Heggs, and, if so, whether his sentence could have been imposed under the 1994 guidelines, absent a departure sentence. The supreme court has determined that defendants will only benefit from the Heggs decision if the sentence imposed under the 1995 guidelines would constitute an impermissible departure sentence under the 1994 guidelines. Id. at 624.
If the court enters an order declaring that resentencing pursuant to Heggs is unnecessary for Piute, it should attach to its order the record documents used to justify that conclusion. See Smith v. State, 761 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
PARKER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and BLUE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Plute v. State, 835 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…er the 1995 sentencing guidelines. The trial court determined that he was entitled to be resentenced under the rule announced in Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000). This determination was made in accordance with our mandate in Plute v. State, 765 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). On resentencing, the trial court imposed habitual offender sentences. Mr. Piute argues that the trial court could not impose [*369] habitual offender sentences at resentenc-ing because guidelines sentences had been imposed at the…
-
Dallis Young v. State, 766 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…tion after attaching sufficient court records to show Young is not entitled to any relief, for example, if his sentence was the result of a plea to a specific sentence. See, e.g., Dunenas v. Moore, 762 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Plute v. State, 765 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). If the court determines Young is entitled to be resentenced pursuant to Heggs, it may grant that relief. REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings. PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. . Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2…
-
Plute v. State, 53 So. 3d 1176 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…tiple armed robberies, an attempted robbery, and robbery. He entered open pleas of guilty to all of the charges. We concluded that his original sentences were illegal due to the unconstitutionality of the relevant sentencing law. See Plute v. State, 765 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). However, we expressly held that his subsequent sentences, which are concurrent twenty-five-year terms of imprisonment as a habitual offender, are legal. See Piute, 835 So. 2d at 369. After we affirmed his sentences in 2003, Mr.…
Authorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Smith v. State, 761 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Heggs v. State, 718 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)