DENNIS ST. LAWRENCE, 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.
A defendant is entitled to challenge the accuracy of a revised sentencing guideline scoresheet at a resentencing hearing, even if the issues were not raised at the original sentencing.
[1] A defendant is entitled to a de novo sentencing hearing with the full array of due process rights upon resentencing.
[2] A defendant should be permitted to challenge the accuracy of a revised sentencing guideline scoresheet at resentencing, even if the challenged matters were not objected t…
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 intelligenceDennis St. Lawrence was resentenced pursuant to Heggs v. State. At resentencing, he attempted to challenge the accuracy of the revised sentencing guid…
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 De Novo Sentencing Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
Dennis St. Lawrence appeals the sentence imposed after he was resentenced pursuant to Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000). He argues that at resentencing, he was denied the opportunity to challenge the accuracy of the revised sentencing guideline scoresheet. We conclude that he should have been permitted to challenge the revised scoresheet and reverse for resentencing.
Because St. Lawrence’s offense was committed within the window period for raising a Heggs challenge established in Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924 (Fla.2000), the trial court set the matter for resentencing. At the resentencing hearing, St. Lawrence attempted to challenge the accuracy of the revised sentencing scoresheet. In particular, he sought to challenge the propriety of assessing victim injury points and the inclusion of certain prior convictions. Because St. Lawrence had not objected to those matters at his original sentencing, the trial court concluded that he was precluded from raising such challenges at resentencing. We disagree.
Once the trial court determined that resentencing was appropriate, St. Lawrence was entitled to a de novo sentencing hearing with the full array of due process rights. State v. Scott, 439 So. 2d 219, 220 (Fla.1983); Baldwin v. State, 700 So. 2d 95, 96 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (holding that on resentencing, a defendant is entitled to a de novo sentencing hearing and may challenge his prior record even though the priors had not been previously challenged). “[WJhen a discrepancy concerning the scoresheet is brought to the sentencing court’s attention, the court should resolve the discrepancy and correct the scoresheet to reflect the accurate numbers.” Erickson v. State, 565 So. 2d 328, 336 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). This is true irrespective of why the defendant is before the court for resentencing. Having an accurate scoresheet at sentencing or re-sentencing promotes confidence in the justice system. If the scoresheet is inaccurate, there is no benefit in perpetuating the error. Scoresheet corrections sometime benefit the defendant and sometime benefit the State. See, e.g., Merkt v. State, 764 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (authorizing trial court to assess victim injury points in recalculating scoresheet based on Heggs, on revocation of community control, although victim injury was not scored as part of defendant’s original sentencing).1
We now turn to St. Lawrence’s claim that prior offenses to which a nolo contendere plea was entered, and for which adjudication of guilt was withheld and probation was successfully completed, are not “convictions” when calculating his “prior record” on the sentencing guideline scoresheet. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.702(d)(2) defines “conviction” as “a determination of guilt resulting from plea or trial, regardless of whether adjudication was withheld or whether imposition of sentence was suspended.” Because a plea of no contest -with an adjudication of guilt withheld and with probation successfully completed does not entail a “determination of guilt,” such offenses should not be included as “prior record” under the sentencing guidelines. As the court held in Batchelor v. State, 729 So. 2d 956, 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999):
In Florida, it is generally recognized that “the term ‘conviction’ means determination of guilt by verdict of the jury or by plea of guilty, and does not require adjudication by the court.” State v. Gazda, 257 So. 2d 242, 243-44 (Fla.1971). An adjudication of guilt following a plea of no contest also qualifies as a “conviction.” Raydo v. State, 696 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), approved in part and quashed in part, 713 So. 2d 996 (Fla.1998). However, a no contest plea followed by a withhold of adjudication is not a “conviction.” Garron v. State, 528 So. 2d 353 (Fla.1988).
At the resentencing hearing, St. Lawrence was not permitted to challenge the accuracy of his scoresheet. Accordingly, we are unable to say whether victim injury and his prior record were accurately scored. Those are matters requiring factual determinations by the trial judge at resentencing.
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse St. Lawrence’s sentence and remand the matter to the trial court for resentencing.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
THOMPSON, C.J. and SHARP, W., J., concur. . The ability of a party to raise issues at resentencing is not unlimited. The law of the case doctrine applies wherein a party seeks to relitigate a specific issue which has been already raised and decided on the merits by an appellate court. Raley v. State, 675 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (21 total)
-
Trotter v. State, 825 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 2002)…valt v. State, 805 So. 2d 834, 834 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Williams v. State, 801 So. 2d 301, 302 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Diaz v. State, 790 So. 2d 523, 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Smith v. State, 800 So. 2d 752, 753 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); St. Lawrence v. State, 785 So. 2d 728, 729-30 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). These district court decisions are consistent with our jurisprudence. See State v. Scott, 439 So. 2d 219, 220 (Fla.1983) (concluding that “once the court has determined that the sentence was indeed illegal and the prison…
-
Peters v. State, 128 So. 3d 832 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…sibilities by conforming his sentence to Judge Walsh’s previous findings. Where resentencing is deemed appropriate, a criminal defendant is “entitled to a de novo sentencing hearing with the full array of due process rights.” St. Lawrence v. State, 785 So. 2d 728, 729-30 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (citations omitted). A successor judge who was not a part of the previous proceedings may not, upon resen-tencing, base a sentence “ ‘entirely upon the recommendation of the [previous] trial judge.’ ” Spencer v. State, 61…
-
Richardson v. State, 821 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…g a harsher sentence, he has failed to meet this burden. See Alabama v. Smith, 490 U.S. 794, 109 S.Ct. 2201, 104 L.Ed.2d 865 (1989); Knowles v. State, 617 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). Richardson’s resentencing was de novo. St. Lawrence v. State, 785 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Once the original conviction had, at Richardson’s behest, been nullified, the slate was wiped clean. Pearce 395 U.S. at 721, 89 S.Ct. 2072. Absent vindictiveness, the trial judge was free to impose any lawful sentence. But Rich…
Previewing 3 of 21 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (12 total)
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Xzavier Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2000)
- Garron v. State, 528 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 1988)
- Raley v. State, 675 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- State v. Scott, 439 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 1983)
- Erickson v. State, 565 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- State v. Gazda, 257 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 1971)
- Baldwin v. State, 700 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- State v. Raydo, 713 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 1998)
- Batchelor v. State, 729 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)