JOHN D. WILLIAMS, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed summary denial of postconviction relief motion, holding that the date of offense, not date of sentencing, determines whether a defendant was sentenced under an unconstitutional version of the sentencing guidelines.
The relevant date for determining whether a defendant was sentenced under an unconstitutional version of the sentencing guidelines is the date the offense was committed, not the date of sentencing.
[1] The date an offense was committed, rather than the date of sentencing, is the relevant date for determining whether a defendant was sentenced under an unconstitutional ve…
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 intelligenceWilliams was sentenced on October 1, 1997, for offenses allegedly committed between December 16, 1996, and May 1, 1997. The trial court denied his Rul…
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 Constitutionality Of Sentencing Guidelines cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
John D. Williams appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, alleging that he was sentenced under an unconstitutional version of the guidelines. Williams was sentenced on October 1, 1997. Williams alleges that the date of the offenses was December 16, 1996, to May 1, 1997. The trial court denied the motion, relying on our decision in Heggs v. State, 718 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998),1 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.
We remand for the trial court to determine whether Williams in fact committed his offense 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 Williams must be resen-tenced 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 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 NORTHCUTT and CASANUEVA JJ., Concur. . Appeal decided by 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
D.M. v. Dobuler, 947 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…here, physical control over a child is obtained by a law enforcement officer on a charge of violating the law, that child has been “taken into custody” and is entitled to a detention hearing within 24 hours of being so detained. See S.J.D. v. State, 774 So. 2d 33, 34 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)(citing section 985.215(2)(g), Florida Statutes (1999), and observing “the provision of the order requiring S.J.D. to be brought before the issuing judge when [the issuing judge] was not available to hold a hearing within twent…
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)