JOHN J. CAPIO 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 appellate court affirmed the denial of a motion to clarify a sentence, holding that the defendant must first allege specific facts showing his sentence could not have been imposed under prior sentencing guidelines before relief could be granted. This case clarifies the procedural requirements for defendants seeking resentencing after a prior law was deemed unconstitutional.
Yes, the defendant must first amend his motion to allege affirmatively the date of the offense and that the sentence imposed could not have been imposed under the 1994 guidelines. If these conditions are met, the trial court must then determine if relief is warranted.
[1] A defendant seeking resentencing under Heggs v. …
[2] A defendant who entered a guilty plea and seeks relief under Heggs v. …
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“Even though Capio does allege that his 1997 crimes occurred during the applicable window period, he does not allege that the sentence imposed could not have been imposed under the 1994 guidelines.”
This quote highlights the specific deficiency in the appellant's original motion that led to its denial.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohn Capio appealed the denial of his motion to clarify his sentence, arguing it should be reconsidered in light of the Florida Supreme Court's decisi…
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 Florida Sentencing Guidelines cases and more on FLexlaw
PLEUS, J.
John Capio appeals the denial of his 3.800 motion “to define or clarify sentence,” citing the supreme court’s opinion in Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000), which held that the “Crime Control Act of 1995,” chapter 95-184, Laws of Florida, violated the single subject rule and hence, was unconstitutional.
Even though Capio does allege that his 1997 crimes occurred during the applicable window period, he does not allege that the sentence imposed could not have been imposed under the 1994 guidelines.
We believe this appeal should be handled in the manner employed by this court in Parker v. State, 767 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), which dealt with similar circumstances — a defendant who entered into a plea agreement. Capio must first amend his motion and allege affirmatively the date of the offense or offenses for which he was sentenced and that the sentence imposed could not have been imposed under the 1994 guidelines. See Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000); Parker. Since Capio entered guilty pleas in his 1997 cases, the trial court, upon receipt of his amended motion, will have to determine whether he is entitled to relief. For example, if no charges were dropped or reduced by the state in return for the plea, and if the agreement was for a guidelines sen tence, and if under the more lenient 1994 guidelines his 51-month sentence would constitute a departure, he could be entitled to resentencing under Heggs. See also Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924 (Fla.2000). If, on the other hand, the state made any sort of concession in return for the plea, the state would have the option of withdrawing from the plea agreement and taking Capio to trial on the original charges. See Parker; Rickman v. State, 713 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Jolly v. State, 392 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order, but without prejudice to Capio to refile a facial3y sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion, or alternatively, to file a rule 3.850 motion to withdraw his plea.
AFFIRMED.
THOMPSON, C.J., and COBB, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Salim Kamau Latiif v. State, 787 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 2001)…ng; instead, the State has the option on remand of proceeding to trial on the original charges or electing to have the defendant resentenced under the 1994 guidelines. See Parker v. State, 767 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); see also Capio v. State, 765 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (holding that in a Heggs claim, if the State made any sort of concession in return for the plea, the State would have the option of withdrawing from the plea agreement and taking the defendant to trial on the original charges).…
-
Torres v. State, 798 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…6.7-244.5 with median of 195.6 199 — range of 112.2-187.0 with median of 149.6 The court found that since Torres received a sentence of 180 months, it was permissible under the 1994 range, and thus there was no Heggs violation. See Capio v. State, 765 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). However, in this ease the DOC did not recompute the scoresheet for 1994 guidelines. Chapter 95-184, the act found to be unconstitutional, did amend the offense levels for attempts. See Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924 (Fla.2000).…
-
Sanchez v. State, 767 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed on the authority of Copio v. State, 765 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Parker v. State, 767 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Ortega v. State, 763 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Dunenas v. Moore, 762 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Xzavier Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2000)
- Jolly v. State, 392 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Miller v. Miller, 767 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Parker v. State, 767 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Rickman v. State, 713 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)