CARLOS GREEN, 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.
Carlos Green was convicted of manslaughter and initially sentenced as a habitual felony offender. After the appellate court struck the habitual offender designation in the first appeal, the trial court reimposed it on remand. The appellate court reversed, holding that the law of the case doctrine precluded reimposition of the habitual offender sentence because the State failed to timely challenge the court's initial error.
The appellate court reversed the reimposition of the habitual offender sentence under the law of the case doctrine. The State failed to demonstrate either unusual circumstances or manifest injustice warranting an exception to the doctrine, particularly because the State had an opportunity to move for rehearing but failed to do so until after the mandate had issued and become final.
[1] The doctrine of the law of the case precludes a trial court from reimposing a habitual offender sentence after an appellate court has struck it, absent unusual circumstan…
[2] An appellate court's power to reconsider and correct an erroneous ruling is limited to unusual circumstances and only where manifest injustice will result from adherence…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“While this court has the power to reconsider and correct an erroneous ruling, the exercise of that power is limited to "unusual circumstances," and only where a "manifest injustice" will result from adherence to the rule.”
Establishes the standard for exception to law of the case doctrine
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn August 1999, Carlos Green was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to thirty years as a habitual felony offender with a minimum mandatory fiftee…
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 Unusual Circumstances cases and more on FLexlaw
KELLY, Judge.
In August 1999, Carlos Green was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to thirty years as a habitual felony offender with a minimum mandatory sentence of fifteen years as a prison releasee reoffen-der. Green appealed, and this court affirmed his conviction but struck his habitual offender designation because this court erroneously believed that the trial court had imposed equal concurrent sentences contrary to Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla.2000). See Green v. State, 782 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). On remand the trial court again sentenced Green to thirty years as a habitual felony offender with a minimum mandatory sentence of fifteen years as a prison releasee reoffender. In this appeal, Green challenges the trial court’s reimposition of the habitual felony offender sentence. We reverse.
Green argues that the doctrine of law of the ease precludes the trial court from imposing the habitual offender sentence. We agree. While this court has the power to reconsider and correct an erroneous ruling, the exercise of that power is limited to “unusual circumstances,” and only where a “manifest injustice” will result from adherence to the rule. Strazzulla v. Hendrick, 177 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1965).
In Green’s first appeal, the State had an opportunity to move for rehearing from our decision and failed to do so. The State took no action until after this court’s mandate had issued and the decision had become final. We do not consider the State’s admitted failure to notice this court’s error to be the type of “unusual circumstance” warranting an exception to the law of the case doctrine.
The State has also failed to demonstrate that adherence to the doctrine will result in manifest injustice. Courts have found manifest injustice when application of the law of the case doctrine results in a harsher sentence for the defendant. See e.g., Line v. State, 722 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Zolache v. State, 687 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). The State has not directed our attention to any case finding manifest injustice when the application of the doctrine results in a lesser but lawful sentence. We recognize the State’s interest in ensuring that defendants such as Green be punished to the fullest extent of the law. However, we do not view the fact that Green will serve a lesser but lawful sentence as rising to the level of manifest injustice given the State’s initial failure to point out our error when it had the chance to do so. Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the trial court with directions to resentence Green as a prison releasee reoffender only.
Reversed and remanded.
GREEN and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Green v. State, 998 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…of manslaughter for an offense committed in 1998. Green v. State, 782 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Eventually, he was legally sentenced to fifteen years’ incarceration as a prison releasee reoffender for this offense. Id.; see also Green v. State, 813 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Thereafter, while Mr. Green was in the custody of the Department of Corrections, two prison employees at the Santa Rosa Correctional Institution, J.K. Schwartz and P.J. Doremus, violated his constitutional rights. The details of…
Authorities Cited
- Grant v. State, 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2000)
- Strazzulla v. Hendrick, 177 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1965)
- Bradford v. State, 722 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Catalino Zolache v. State, 687 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Green v. State, 782 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)