CORNELIO DIAZ, 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 held that a defendant is entitled to resentencing under Heggs when offenses occurred during the window period of unconstitutional sentencing guidelines, even if the trial court found reasons for upward departure.
[1] A defendant is entitled to resentencing when offenses were committed during the window period when sentencing guidelines were unconstitutional and the sentence imposed ex…
[2] A trial court may enter an upward departure sentence after vacating an original sentence 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 intelligenceDiaz appealed the denial of his postconviction motion. The trial court denied the motion again, but acknowledged that Diaz' offenses occurred during t…
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 Upward Departure Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Cornelio Diaz timely appeals the second summary denial of his postconviction motion. The first order was reversed in Diaz v. State, 766 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). On remand, the trial court again denied the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing but adopted and attached to its order the state’s response to the motion. We reverse the order only insofar as it denied Diaz’ claim for resentencing under Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000).
The trial court found that Diaz’ offenses were committed during the window period when the 1995 sentencing guidelines were unconstitutional, and that the sentence he received for one of the counts exceeded the sentencing range under the 1994 guidelines. However, the court pointed out that it had found two reasons for an upward departure at the original sentencing hearing, and concluded that it would have imposed the same sentence under the 1994 guidelines.
The state agrees that a new sentencing hearing is required. The trial court may enter an upward departure sentence after the original guidelines sentence is vacated under Heggs. See Woodson v. State, 777 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Everett v. State, 770 So. 2d 192, 193 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). But see Etienne v. State, 780 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)(trial court cannot impose departure sentence when it had rejected the reasons for an upward departure at the original sentencing hearing). However, the resentencing procedure must comply with the requirements of due process and the Sixth Amendment. Dougherty v. State, 785 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)(defendant’s presence is required at resentencing hearing); Ingram v. State, 789 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)(indigent defendant has right to court-appointed counsel); June v. State, 784 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)(defendant may challenge prior convictions); Lawrence v. State, 785 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)(defendant may seek scoresheet corrections).
We reverse on this point only and remand for a new sentencing hearing. In all other respects, the order on appeal is affirmed.
POLEN, C.J., FARMER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Trotter v. State, 825 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 2002)…s. See Pelham v. State, 815 So. 2d 733, 734 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Webb v. State, 805 So. 2d 856, 857 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Duvalt 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. 2…
Authorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- ST. Lawrence v. State, 785 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Dougherty v. State, 785 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Everett v. State, 770 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- June v. State, 784 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Burks v. State, 789 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Woodson v. State, 777 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Etienne v. State, 780 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Cornelio Diaz v. State, 766 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)