RANDALL CARLTON GRAY, 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.
Randall Gray was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to fifteen years. The appellate court affirmed the conviction but reversed the sentence because the trial court improperly considered details of pending charges that arose after the manslaughter offense while Gray was on bond.
The trial court erred in considering the pending charges during sentencing for the manslaughter conviction. The sentence must be reversed and the case remanded for resentencing by a different judge because the State's presentation centered on the new charges and the State failed to carry its burden of showing the trial court did not consider them in sentencing.
[1] A trial court errs in considering the details of pending charges that occurred after the offense for which the defendant is being sentenced, especially when the defendant…
[2] A defendant's assertion of not guilty to pending charges does not preclude the trial court from considering those charges at sentencing if the State carries its burden to…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“We affirm the conviction without further discussion. We reverse the sentence because the trial court erred in considering the details of pending charges that were alleged to have occurred after the manslaughter offense while Gray was out on bond.”
Establishes the court's holding that the conviction stands but sentencing must be reversed due to consideration of improper information.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGray was convicted of manslaughter and faced sentencing. While out on bond pending the manslaughter sentencing, Gray was charged with additional offen…
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 Sentencing Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
FULMER, Judge.
Randall Gray challenges his conviction for manslaughter and the resulting fifteen-year sentence. We affirm the conviction without further discussion. We reverse the sentence because the trial court erred in considering the details of pending charges that were alleged to have occurred after the manslaughter offense while Gray was out on bond.
At sentencing for the manslaughter charge, the parties engaged in a discussion over whether a plea agreement could be reached for the other cases pending against Gray. Gray Informed the court that he wanted to have the new cases continued and that he would not enter a plea to the new charges because he was not guilty. The trial court set the new cases for future trial dates.
The court then turned its attention to sentencing for the instant manslaughter case. The State indicated its intention to introduce evidence, photographs and testimony from the officers involved, concerning the pending offenses that were alleged to have occurred after the manslaughter. The defense attorney for the manslaughter case, who was not representing Gray for the new charges, objected to the court considering the new charges. However, the defense attorney took the position that, assuming his objection was overruled, the court should review the exhibits relating to the new charges rather than hearing testimony from the officers involved. The trial court agreed to review the State’s exhibits, which consisted of numerous photographs relating to the new charges.
In Seays v. State, 789 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), the Fourth District remanded for resentencing because of improper information which may have influenced the trial court’s sentence. Seays was charged with burglary with a battery. While he was out on bond, he was charged with attempted murder of the same victim. 789 So. 2d at 1209. After a jury found Seays guilty of the burglary charge, a sentencing hearing was held at which Seays asked for the bottom of the guidelines since this was his first felony offense. The State reminded the trial court of the pending attempted murder charge and asked for the top of the guidelines, which the trial court imposed. Id. On appeal Seays argued that the trial court erred in considering the pending attempted murder charge in sentencing him for burglary. Id. at 1209. The district court concluded that the State had not carried its burden to show that the trial court did not consider the pending charge in sentencing Seays and, therefore, reversed and remanded for resentencing by a different judge. Id. at 1210.
Here, the State’s presentation and argument before the trial judge centered on the new charges. As the court did in Seays, we reverse the sentence and remand for resentencing by a different judge.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
SALCINES and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Norvil v. State, 191 So. 3d 406 (Fla. 2016)…of Appeal in Norvil v. State, 162 So. 3d 3 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), on the ground that it expressly and directly conflicts with Yisrael v. State, 65 So. 3d 1177 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011), Mirutil v. State, 30 So. 3d 588 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), and Gray v. State, 964 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 2d.DCA 2007), on the issue of whether a trial court violated a defendant’s due process rights at sentencing by considering a subsequent arrest without conviction during sentencing for the primary offense. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(…
-
Yeshuwa Yisrael v. State, 65 So. 3d 1177 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…red to be punishing the defendant for failure to show remorse for a crime in which he denied involvement).1 Consideration of pending or dismissed charges during sentencing results in a denial of the defendant’s due process rights. See Gray v. State, 964 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (trial court improperly considered pending charges during sentencing); Seays v. State, 789 So. 2d 1209, 1210 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (trial court improperly considered pending attempted murder charge, of which the defendant was ultima…
-
Fernandez v. State, 212 So. 3d 494 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…that the trial court considered the new charge in imposing sentence. The State has the burden “to show that the trial court did not rely on the pending charge resulting from the subsequent arrest.” Norvil, 191 So. 3d at 409; see also Gray v. State, 964 So. 2d 884, 885 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (reversing where the State failed to carry "its burden to show that the trial court did not consider the pending charge”). The record in this case—involving the trial court’s explicit statement that the sentence was, at least…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Titus Seays v. State, 789 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)