DANNY WILLIS, 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.
Danny Willis appealed the trial court's re-sentencing, arguing that his conviction for sexual battery should have been scored as a Level 7 offense rather than Level 9 under the 1994 sentencing guidelines. The court reversed and remanded for re-sentencing based on controlling precedent establishing that such convictions must be scored at Level 7.
The court held that Willis' conviction for sexual battery by a person in familial or custodial authority should have been scored as a Level 7 offense under the 1994 guidelines, and the error was not harmless because his 264-month sentence could not have been imposed under the proper scoring.
[1] A defendant is entitled to re-sentencing under prior sentencing guidelines when their sentence imposed under unconstitutional guidelines could not have been imposed under…
[2] Sexual battery by a person in familial or custodial authority should be scored as a Level 7 offense under the 1994 sentencing guidelines.
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“because Appellant's sentence—which was between the lower and upper limits of the unconstitutional 1995 guidelines--could not have been imposed under the 1994 guidelines, Appellant was entitled to re-sentencing under the 1994 guidelines using Count II as the primary offense.”
Establishes the basis for the original reversal and re-sentencing in Willis I
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWillis was previously re-sentenced under the 1994 guidelines following reversal in Willis I. On re-sentencing, the trial court scored Count II (sexual…
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 Scoring Of Offenses cases and more on FLexlaw
BROWNING, J.
Pursuant to Willis v. State, 785 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) {Willis I), the trial court’s denial of Danny Willis’ (Appellant) motion to correct sentence under Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000), was reversed. In Willis I, 785 So. 2d at 699, this court concluded that because Appellant’s sentence- — which was between the lower and upper limits of the unconstitutional 1995 guidelines--could not have been imposed under the 1994 guidelines, Appellant was entitled to re-sentencing under the 1994 guidelines using Count II as the primary offense. Appellant contends that the trial court reversibly erred on re-sentencing by scoring Count II (sexual battery by a person in familial or custodial authority) as a Level 9, rather than Level 7, offense on the guidelines scoresheet. Appellant asserts that correction of the error would reduce the sentencing range to 99.9 to 166.5 months, i.e., below the cumulative 264-month sentence imposed on re-sentencing.
The State has filed as supplemental controlling authority Holt v. State, 808 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002),1 in which this court held that under the 1994 sentencing guidelines, defendant Holt’s conviction for sexual battery by a familial custodian should have been scored as a Level 7, rather than Level 9, offense; and that the error was not harmless, in that Holt’s current sentence could not have been imposed under the 1994 guidelines without a departure. Id. at 292; see also Chatfield v. State, 814 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).
For the reasons underlying our Holt and Chatfield decisions, we reverse and remand for re-sentencing scoring the primary offense as a Level 7 offense pursuant to the 1994 guidelines.
REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.
ALLEN, C.J. and LEWIS, J., concur. . Holt was decided subsequent to Appellant’s re-sentencing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Hartney v. Piedmont Tech., 814 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Chatfield v. State, 814 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Ryder TRS, Inc. v. Brice Google, 808 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Holt v. State, 808 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Brown v. State, 785 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Willis v. State, 785 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)