LUZ BELTRAN-AGUIAR, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Luz Beltran-Aguiar appealed the denial of her motion to correct an allegedly illegal sentence based on the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Heggs v. State that chapter 95-184 was unconstitutional. The District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to properly determine whether Beltran-Aguiar was sentenced under the correct statute, which would affect whether her sentence exceeded the statutory maximum.
The court held that the trial court erred by summarily denying the motion without determining whether Beltran-Aguiar pled guilty to the amended information charging trafficking under section 893.135(1)(c)(1)(a). If she pled to that charge, her sentence exceeds the statutory maximum under both the 1994 and 1995 sentencing guidelines and is illegal.
[1] A sentence exceeding the statutory maximum is illegal.
[2] A defendant sentenced under an unconstitutional statutory amendment may be entitled to relief.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“If that was the charge to which she pled, Beltran-Aguiar was not subject to a mandatory minimum prison term as she would have been had she pled guilty to a charge under section 893.135(1)(c)(1)(c). Instead, she should have been sentenced to a guideline sentence with a $50,000.00 fine as provided under section 893.135(1)(c)(1)(a).”
Establishes the legal consequence of the charged offense and the proper sentencing framework applicable to the amended information
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBeltran-Aguiar moved to correct her sentence citing Heggs v. State, claiming it was illegal under unconstitutional sentencing guidelines. The trial co…
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
PER CURIAM.
Luz Beltran-Aguiar moved below to correct an allegedly illegal sentence, citing to Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000), in which the Florida Supreme Court found chapter 95-184, Laws of Florida unconstitutional. The State concedes that Beltran Aguiar’s claim falls within the window period for Heggs claims established in Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924 (Fla.2000). The trial court summarily denied her motion because it found that Beltran Aguiar was not sentenced pursuant to the 1995 guidelines, but, rather, that she was sentenced pursuant to an agreement under which the State would waive a mandatory minimum prison sentence Beltran Aguiar was allegedly facing.
On appeal, however, the State admits that the record appears to support Bel-tran-Aguiar’s claim that the information in her case was amended to charge trafficking in four grams of heroin. See § 893.135(1)(c)(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1995). If that was the charge to which she pled, Beltran-Aguiar was not subject to a mandatory minimum prison term as she would have been had she pled guilty to a charge under section 893.135(1)(c)(1)(c). Instead, she should have been sentenced to a guideline sentence with a $50,000.00 fine as provided under section 893.135(1)(c)(1)(a). Assuming that she pled to the amended information, as the record appears to reflect, her present sentence exceeds the statutory maximum under both the 1994 and 1995 sentencing guidelines and is therefore illegal.
This case is remanded to the trial court for further consideration and a determination of whether Beltran-Aguiar was improperly sentenced - under section 893.135(1)(c)(1)(e), even though the information in her case was apparently amended prior to the time of her plea under section 893.135(1)(c)(1)(a). Should the trial court determine that Beltran-Aguiar pled guilty to and should have been sentenced pursuant to section 893.135(1)(c)(1)(a), then she should have been sentenced in accordance with the guidelines in effect before the 'unconstitutional amendments to the sentencing guidelines made in chapter 95-184 became effective, and thus Heggs would not apply to her case.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Xzavier Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2000)