RICKY HOPE, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 Florida Supreme Court held that a sentencing scoresheet error based on unconstitutional statutory amendments (Chapter 95-184) constitutes fundamental error that may be raised on appeal without contemporaneous objection. The Court quashed the Fourth District's affirmance and remanded for recalculation of the defendant's guidelines scoresheet under the pre-amendment sentencing guidelines.
The Court held that challenges to the constitutionality of Chapter 95-184 sentencing amendments may be properly raised for the first time on appeal despite absence of contemporaneous objection, constituting fundamental error. The Court quashed the sentence and remanded for recalculation under the pre-amendment guidelines.
[1] A challenge to the constitutionality of sentencing guidelines may be raised for the first time on appeal, even absent a contemporaneous objection in the trial court.
[2] Sentencing errors based on unconstitutional amendments to sentencing guidelines can constitute fundamental error and be addressed on direct appeal.
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“We have held that the challenge to the constitutionality of chapter 95-184 may be properly addressed for the first time on appeal despite the absence of a contemporaneous objection in the trial court.”
Establishes that constitutional challenges to sentencing statutes constitute fundamental error reviewable without contemporaneous objection
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRicky Hope was convicted by jury of attempted first-degree murder on July 24, 1996. The trial court calculated his sentencing guidelines scoresheet at…
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 Single Subject Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Hope v. State, 736 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), which expressly and directly conflicts with Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla.2000), as to whether a sentencing error can be reviewed absent a contemporaneous objection. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. Petitioner Ricky Hope was charged and convicted by a jury of an attempted first-degree murder that occurred on July 24, 1996. At the sentencing hearing, Hope’s calculated sentencing guidelines scoresheet indicated an appropriate sentence of 100.5 to 167.5 months of incarceration.
The trial court upwardly departed from the guidelines and sentenced petitioner to a prison term of thirty years, the statutory maximum for attempted first-degree murder.
The trial court based its departure on three reasons: (1) Hope had an extensive unscoreable juvenile record; (2) the primary offense was scored at level seven or higher, and Hope was found guilty as a juvenile for a robbery with a deadly weapon offense which scored at a level eight or higher; and (3) Hope was not amenable to rehabilitation, as evidenced by an escalating pattern of criminal conduct. Hope objected to the departure.
On appeal, the Fourth District affirmed the upward departure sentence on the basis that “one of the reasons given by the trial court for departure is valid-i.e., that [Hope] is not amenable to rehabilitation as evidenced by an escalating pattern of criminal conduct.” Hope, 736 So. 2d at 1256. Relying on Hyden v. State, 715 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), approved sub nom. Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla.2000), the Fourth District also affirmed “the addition of thirty points for a prior serious felony to [Hope’s] scoresheet because [Hope] failed to preserve this issue for appellate review.” Hope, 736 So. 2d at 1256.
On appeal to this Court, Hope claims that since his scoresheet was calculated under unconstitutional guidelines, the trial court’s addition of thirty points for a prior serious felony constitutes fundamental error. See Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000) (holding chapter 95-184, Laws of Florida, unconstitutional as violative of single subject requirement of article III, section 6, Florida Constitution, and that imposition of sentence under amendments made by chapter 95-184 was error). Hope also claims that the trial court’s reasons for the upward departure were invalid.
•We have held that the challenge to the constitutionality of chapter 95-184 may be properly addressed for the first time on appeal despite the absence of a contemporaneous objection in the trial court. See Heggs, 759 So. 2d at 623, 624 n. 4; see also Garcia v. State, 760 So. 2d 931 (Fla.2000) (“Based on our decision in [Maddox ], we determine that Garcia may properly raise a single subject rule challenge to chapter 95-184 ... for the first time on appeal.”); Carson v. State, 760 So. 2d 930 (Fla.2000) (same).
As Hope’s offense was committed on July 24, 1996, Hope has standing to raise a Heggs claim. See Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924, 928 (Fla.2000) (extending the window period in which defendant could obtain relief for Heggs error from October 1, 1995, to May 24, 1997); Heggs, 759 So. 2d at 627.
Furthermore, it is clear that calculation of Hope’s scoresheet under the 1994 guidelines results in a lower sentencing range than the range calculated under chapter 95-184.
Therefore, in accordance with Heggs, we quash the Fourth District’s affirmance of Hope’s sentence. We remand to the Fourth District, as we agree with Hope that the departure sentence should be reconsidered after the recalculation of his scoresheet under the sentencing guidelines in effect prior to the date the unconstitutional amendments made by chapter 95-184 became effective.
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS, and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Gwenda Jean Lemon, 825 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 2002)…ster’s Dictionary defines "can” (present tense of "could”) as "to be able to do, make, or accomplish.” Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 165 (10th ed.1999). It defines "would” as "wished, desired.” Id. at 1365. . Our holding in Hope v. State, 797 So. 2d 1252 (Fla.2001), does not affect this case. In Hope, we staled a Heggs claim may be addressed for the first time on appeal and we remanded Hope’s case to the Fourth District for reconsideration of the departure sentence "after the recalculation of his sc…1 / 3
-
Uzi Gary Stav v. State, 860 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…995 guidelines range for economic motives. Stav contends that because this departure sentence was based on the 1995 guidelines and not the 1994 guidelines, his sentence should be reversed and remanded for appropriate calculation under Hope v. State, 797 So. 2d 1252, 1253 (Fla.2001). The State challenges this proposition based on State v. Lemon, 825 So. 2d 927 (Fla.2002), which [*482] while differentiating Hope, concluded that a departure sentence did not need to be reconsidered where “the departure sentence wa…
-
DeMONIA v. State, 806 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…However, because the trial court sentenced DeMonia using the now-unconstitutional 1995 guidelines, we must consider whether Heggs requires us to remand for recalculation of DeMonia’s scoresheet under the 1994 guidelines.1 Pursuant to Hope v. State, 797 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 2001), we remand for recalculation of DeMonia’s departure sentence. Remanded for recalculation. BLUE, C.J., and THREADGILL, J„ Concur. . The information specified that DeMonia committed the grand theft between December 1, 1996, and Septembe…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2000)
- Xzavier Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2000)
- Hyden v. State, 715 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Hope v. State, 736 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Carson v. State, 760 So. 2d 930 (Fla. 2000)
- Garcia v. State, 760 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 2000)