MICHAEL DOYLE, 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 resentencing under the 1994 guidelines if their offenses fall within the Heggs window period, even if the upward departure is de minimis.
Michael Doyle challenged his 1995 guidelines sentence, arguing it was unconstitutional under Heggs v. State. His offenses occurred within the window p…
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 1995 Sentencing Guidelines cases and more on FLexlaw
STRINGER, Judge.
Michael Doyle challenges his 1995 guidelines sentence as unconstitutional based on Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000), and claims he is entitled to be resentenced under the 1994 guidelines.1 Doyle’s offenses were committed on Octo ber 18, 1996, within the window period for asserting single subject challenges. Id. at 623. He is therefore entitled to have his sentence reconsidered in accordance with Smith v. State, 761 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
The State concedes that Doyle’s sentence would be an upward departure under the 1994 sentencing guidelines but contends that resentencing is unnecessary. The State relies on this court’s decision in Davis v. State, 775 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), to argue that Doyle is not entitled to Heggs relief because the upward departure for his youthful offender sentence is de minimis, resulting in him serving only an additional ten days. We disagree. In the absence of written reasons to support the upward departure, even youthful offender sentences cannot exceed the sentencing guidelines. See, e.g., Easton v. State, 687 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Watson v. State, 690 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Moreover, no offender should be subject to confinement for even one day more than required under a legal sentence. We, therefore, remand this case for resentencing in accordance with Smith, 761 So. 2d 419.
Remanded for reconsideration of sentence.
THREADGILL, A.C.J., and SALCINES, J., Concur. . Doyle preserved this sentencing error by filing a motion to correct sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Leeks v. State, 973 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…e corrected pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). See Richardson v. State, 915 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (noting that defendant preserved objection to upward departure sentence by filing 3.800(b)(2) motion); Doyle v. State, 788 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); see also Beck v. State, 817 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Leeks’s motion complained that the circuit court had imposed an upward departure sentence without giving written reasons. After reviewing the motion, the circuit court i…
Authorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Smith v. State, 761 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Watson v. State, 690 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Easton v. State, 687 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Sikorski v. State, 687 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Davis v. State, 775 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)