PATRICK R. SMITH, 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.
Patrick Smith appeals his re-sentencing following a Heggs challenge to the constitutionality of the 1995 sentencing guidelines. The court vacates and remands because the trial court erred by refusing to consider Smith's claim that his guidelines scoresheet incorrectly included misdemeanors that did not result in convictions, based on an inapplicable waiver argument.
A defendant receiving a re-sentencing hearing pursuant to a Heggs challenge is entitled to a de novo sentencing hearing with full due process rights and may challenge his prior record scoresheet, including prior convictions that were not previously challenged. The trial court erred in applying a waiver argument to bar such claims.
[1] A defendant granted a resentencing hearing pursuant to a Heggs challenge is entitled to a de novo sentencing hearing with the full array of due process rights.
[2] On resentencing, a defendant may challenge the accuracy of their prior record, even if the prior convictions were not previously challenged.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“when a defendant receives a re-sentencing hearing pursuant to a Heggs ' challenge, he or she is entitled to receive a de novo sentencing hearing with the full array of due process rights”
Establishes the core holding that re-sentencing hearings following Heggs challenges must be de novo with full due process protections, not limited by prior waivers.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSmith was convicted of aggravated battery and sentenced to 50 months in prison followed by 5 years probation. His conviction and sentence were affirme…
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
PALMER, J.
Patrick Smith appeals his sentence which was entered by the trial court following a re-sentencing hearing granted pursuant to Smith’s rule 3.850 motion. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850. Concluding that the trial court erred by failing to consider Smith’s contention that his guidelines scoresheet erroneously included two misdemeanors which did not result in convictions, we vacate the sentencing order and remand for re-sentencing.
Smith was convicted of committing an aggravated battery. He was initially sentenced to a term of fifty months in prison followed by five years probation. The conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. See Smith v. State, 743 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).
Smith thereafter filed a rule 3.850 motion alleging, among other claims, that he was entitled to be re-sentenced under Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000)(holding the 1995 sentencing guidelines to be unconstitutional). The trial court agreed and scheduled a re-sentencing hearing. At that hearing, Smith alleged that the “prior record” section of his scoresheet incorrectly scored three convictions for misdemeanors that were not convictions and, accordingly, that his guidelines score should be reduced. In response, the State argued that Smith waived any such error when he did not challenge the accuracy of his prior record at the time of his original sentencing. The trial court apparently agreed with the State’s waiver argument and refused to consider the defendant’s claim.
In June v. State, 784 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), we held that when a defendant receives a re-sentencing hearing pursuant to a Heggs ’ challenge, he or she is entitled to receive a de novo sentencing hearing with the full array of due process rights. Accordingly, the trial court should have rejected the State’s waiver argument and evaluated Smith’s scoresheet claim. See also Baldwin v. State, 700 So. 2d 95, 96 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)(holding that on re-sentencing, a defendant is entitled to receive a de novo sentencing hearing and can challenge his prior record even though the prior convictions had not been previously challenged).
Sentencing order VACATED and cause REMANDED for re-sentencing.
GRIFFIN and PLEUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Trotter v. State, 825 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 2002)…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. 2d 219, 220 (Fla.1983) (concluding that “once the court ha…
Authorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Baldwin v. State, 700 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- June v. State, 784 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)