HERMAN BYRON BUTLER, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 not automatically entitled to a new trial based on recantation testimony, but that resentencing a defendant to a mandatory minimum term when the original sentence did not have one constitutes an impermissible increase in penalty.
Defendant appealed an order denying postconviction relief. The trial court rejected claims based on a recanting witness and ineffective assistance of …
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 Habitual Violent Felony Offender (Hvfo) cases and more on FLexlaw
[*89] PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal of an order denying postconviction relief, after the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The trial court found the testimony of the recanting witness and the witness’ sister not to be credible. The question of whether recantation testimony is credible is a preliminary issue for the trial court. Armstrong v. State, 642 So. 2d 730, 735 (Fla.1994). It was therefore permissible for the trial court to reject the request for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
Defendant-appellant Butler maintains that once the trial witness filed a recantation affidavit, the defendant was automatically entitled to a new trial. That is not the law. Id.
We affirm the trial court’s rejection of the claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel without discussion.
We do find merit, however, in a sentencing issue. The defendant was originally sentenced as a violent career criminal. The defendant’s crime date falls within the period of time for which the violent career criminal statute was unconstitutional on account of a violation of the single subject rule. State v. Thompson, 750 So. 2d 643 (Fla.2000). The trial court resentenced the defendant as a habitual violent felony offender (“HVFO”).
The defendant’s original sentence as a violent career criminal was for a life term with no mandatory minimum sentence. On resentencing as an HVFO, the trial court imposed a life term with a mandatory minimum sentence of fifteen years. We conclude that the addition of a fifteen-year mandatory minimum sentence amounted to an impermissible increase in the penalty. We reverse that part of the sentencing order which imposed the mandatory minimum term. Defendant need not be present for resentencing.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for correction of sentencing order.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
MacHin v. State, 867 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…r. Rodriguez was lying in an effort to assist his neighbor and close friend.1 Given this credibility determination, it was appropriate to deny the post-conviction motion insofar as it depended on [*515] Mr. Rodriguez’ testimony. See Butler v. State, 807 So. 2d 88, 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Fica v. State, 549 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). The defendant contended that his wife should have been called as an alibi witness. The court found the wife to be a credible witness. However, the court also concluded that t…
-
Charles v. State, 59 So. 3d 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…rect the trial court to reinstate the 110.55-month prison sentence, with a three-year minimum mandatory, and credit for time served. The trial court may not now impose a fine. The defendant need not be present for re-sentencing. See Butler v. State, 807 So. 2d 88, 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Morales v. State, 795 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and case remanded with directions. . The crime date was March 14, 2007.…
-
Montenegro v. State, 876 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…ing. As the trial courts rulings are supported by competent substantial evidence, we affirm the order denying relief. See Machin v. State, 867 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Williams v. State, 808 So. 2d 267, 267 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Butler v. State, 807 So. 2d 88, 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), review denied, 828 So. 2d 384 (Fla.2002). Affirmed.'…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Thompson, 750 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1999)
- Lancelot Armstrong v. State, 642 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1994)