LEONARD COPELAND, 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 the motion to correct an illegal sentence should have been granted because the defendant was sentenced under unconstitutional guidelines.
Leonard Copeland was convicted of burglary and armed robbery in March 1984 and sentenced under the sentencing guidelines. The Florida Supreme Court la…
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 Unconstitutional Sentencing Guidelines cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Leonard Copeland appeals an order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We conclude that the motion should have been granted, and reverse the order now before us.
Defendant-appellant Copeland was convicted of burglary and armed robbery. The crime date was March 1984. The defendant was sentenced under the sentencing guidelines to a departure sentence of life followed by thirty years.
Subsequently the Florida Supreme Court held the sentencing guidelines unconstitutional for the period prior to July 1, 1984. Smith v. State, 537 So. 2d 982, 987 (Fla.1989). This means that the defendant must be resentenced to a nonguidelines, parole-eligible sentence. Id.; see Braggs v. State, 642 So. 2d 129, 131 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Fowler v. State, 641 So. 2d 941, 942 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).
At the sentencing proceeding the defendant may elect to be sentenced under the guidelines if he so chooses. If he does so, the trial court is free to reimpose the departure sentence, see Braggs, 642 So. 2d at 131, which would not be parole-eligible.
For the reasons stated, the order denying the motion is reversed and the cause remanded for resentencing of the defendant.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morrison v. State, 932 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…s convicted at trial and was sentenced under the 1995 sentencing guidelines. In that circumstance a defendant is allowed to raise a Heggs claim under Rule 3.800(a). Carter v. State, 848 So. 2d 1255, 1256 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (citing Copeland v. State, 842 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)). The State concedes, and we agree, that if the defendant’s calculations are correct then it would be a manifest injustice within the meaning of State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla.2003), to enforce a procedural bar on this cla…
-
Smith v. State, 876 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…, parole-eligible sentences, or, if Appellant elects, to sentences under the version of the sentencing statutes in effect at the time that Appellant makes, an effective election.1 [*684] See §§ 921.002-921.0027, Fla. Stat. (2003); Copeland v. State, 842 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). See also Braggs v. State, 642 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Fowler v. State, 641 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).2 Appellant has the right to be present at re-sentencing and to be represented by counsel. See Duhart v. State, 858…
-
Al-Jerome Carter v. State, 848 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…unconstitutional for crimes committed from October 1, 1995 to May 24, 1997. See Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000). Where the sentencing guidelines are unconstitutional, the defendant can claim relief under Rule 3.800. See Copeland v. State, 842 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (holding that the defendant must be resentenced where sentencing guidelines have been held unconstitutional). Heggs requires only the resentencing of those persons who were adversely affected by the application of the 1995 gui…
Authorities Cited
- Alphonso P. Smith v. State, 537 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 1989)
- Braggs v. State, 642 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Fowler v. State, 641 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)