CHARLES SINGLETON, 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.
Charles Singleton was convicted of cocaine sales and possession and pleaded guilty to grand theft charges. He appealed arguing the trial court failed to properly inquire into his request to discharge counsel for ineffectiveness. The court affirmed his convictions but remanded for resentencing because his offenses fell within the window period for challenging sentences imposed under the unconstitutionally enacted 1995 sentencing guidelines.
The circuit court's Nelson inquiry was sufficient and the cocaine convictions are affirmed. However, because Singleton's drug offenses were committed within the window period (October 1, 1995 to May 24, 1997) for challenging sentences under the unconstitutionally enacted 1995 guidelines, the case is remanded for resentencing consideration. The trial court must also determine if the grand theft offenses fall within the window period and reconsider those sentences if applicable.
[1] A circuit court's inquiry into a defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is sufficient if it addresses the core concerns of the defendant's allegations.
[2] Defendants sentenced under the 1995 sentencing guidelines may be entitled to resentencing if their offenses fall within a specific window period.
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“He asks this court to grant him a new trial on the drug convictions, arguing that the circuit court failed to conduct a proper Nelson inquiry when he sought to discharge his counsel for ineffectiveness.”
States the main issue on appeal regarding the trial court's inquiry into defendant's request to discharge counsel
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSingleton was convicted by jury of sale and possession of cocaine and pleaded guilty to two grand theft charges. He was sentenced under the 1995 sente…
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.
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
A jury convicted Charles Singleton of sale and possession of cocaine. He also pleaded guilty to two grand theft charges, and was sentenced under the 1995 guidelines for all these crimes. He asks this court to grant him a new trial on the drug convictions, arguing that the circuit court failed to conduct a proper Nelson1 inquiry when he sought to discharge his counsel for ineffectiveness. We hold the inquiry was sufficient and affirm the cocaine-related convictions. Singleton did not challenge the grand theft convictions on appeal.
The supreme court has held the 1995 sentencing guidelines were unconstitutionally enacted and that certain defendants sentenced pursuant to those guidelines may be entitled to resentencing. See Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000). The offense date for Singleton’s sale and possession of cocaine charges was January 6, 1997. This offense date falls within the window period for challenging the 1995 sentencing guidelines. See Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924 (Fla.2000) (holding that the window period opens on October 1, 1995 and closes on May 24, 1997). Because Singleton’s drug offenses were committed within this window period, we remand this case to the trial court to reconsider his sentences for those crimes pursuant to Heggs and Smith v. State, 761 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). The record does not indicate the offense dates for the grand theft charges that were resolved at the same sentencing hearing. The circuit court should determine if those crimes were committed during the window period discussed above, and if so, reconsider Singleton’s sentences for the grand thefts as well.
Convictions affirmed, sentences remanded.
FULMER, A.C.J., and DAVIS, J., Concur. . Nelson v. State, 274 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stone v. State, 402 So. 2d 1330 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 959, 99 S.Ct. 1500, 59 L.Ed.2d 772 (1979). We also prefer that view. AFFIRMED. SHIVERS, J., and LILES, WOODIE A., (Retired) Associate Judge, concur. . The co-defendant’s appeal was disposed of in St. John v. State, 779 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).…
Authorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Nelson v. State, 274 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Xzavier Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2000)
- Smith v. State, 761 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)