LOUIS MURRAY, 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 affirmed the convictions but remanded for resentencing, holding that relief under Heggs requires the sentence to fall within a specific window and that the sentence could not have been lawfully imposed under the 1994 guidelines.
[1] A statute enacted in violation of the single subject provision of the Florida Constitution is unconstitutional.
[2] Defendants seeking 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 intelligenceLouis Murray was convicted of offenses committed between May and August 1996. He challenged his sentences imposed under the 1995 sentencing guidelines…
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 Article Iii, Section 6 Of The Florida Constitution cases and more on FLexlaw
CASANUEVA, Judge.
Louis Murray has challenged his convictions and sentences for a number of offenses committed between May 29, 1996, and August 31, 1996. We find no merit in his challenges to his convictions and affirm.
Mr. Murray also challenges his sentencing pursuant to the 1995 sentencing guidelines, which he contends are unconstitutional based on this court’s decision in Heggs v. State, 718 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Mr. Murray claims that his permissible sentencing range would have been lower had it been calculated on a 1994 guidelines scoresheet.
The Florida Supreme Court has now held that chapter 95-184, Laws of Florida, was unconstitutionally enacted because it violated the single subject provision of article III, section 6, of the Florida Constitution. See Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000). For defendants to obtain relief under Heggs, their sentences must fall within the applicable window period of October 1, 1995, through May 24, 1997. See Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924 (Fla.2000). Furthermore, if the sentence imposed pursuant to the unconstitutionally-enacted guidelines could have been lawfully imposed, absent a departure, under the 1994 guidelines, the defendant is not entitled to relief.
Accordingly, we affirm Mr. Murray’s convictions but remand this case for the trial court to reconsider his sentence pursuant to this court’s ruling in Smith v. State, 761 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). See also Salters v. State, 758 So. 2d 667, 669 n. 4 (Fla.2000). On remand the trial court must confirm the dates of Mr. Murray’s offenses and determine whether his sentence could not have been imposed under the 1994 guidelines without a departure. If the answer is affirmative, Mr. Murray must be resentenced 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, 761 So. 2d at 422.
Convictions affirmed; remanded with instructions to reconsider sentencing.
PATTERSON, C.J, and GREEN, J., Concur.
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)
- Smith v. State, 761 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Salters v. State, 758 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 2000)
- Heggs v. State, 718 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)