MARIO PIERRE, 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.
Mario Pierre appealed a life sentence for armed kidnapping imposed as an upward departure from sentencing guidelines. Pierre argued the sentence was illegal because the trial court failed to file separate written reasons for the departure and because the departure was based on facts determined by the trial court rather than the jury. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed, finding Pierre's arguments were either previously decided against him or inapplicable under controlling law.
The court affirmed Pierre's sentence, rejecting both arguments. First, the court held that Pierre's argument regarding the lack of a separate written order had already been decided adversely to Pierre in prior litigation. Second, the court held that Apprendi and Blakely did not render the sentence illegal because the statutory maximum for armed kidnapping is life imprisonment, and Blakely does not apply retroactively to sentences that became final before its issuance.
[1] A signed transcript of a sentencing hearing may serve as a written order articulating the grounds for a departure sentence.
[2] Apprendi v. …
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“Apprendi, however, only applies to sentences which exceed the statutory maximum.”
Establishes that Apprendi v. New Jersey does not apply to Pierre's case because his life sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum for armed kidnapping.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePierre was convicted after a jury trial of burglary, two counts of aggravated battery, and armed kidnapping. He received a life sentence on the armed …
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 Blakely V. Washington cases and more on FLexlaw
ROTHENBERG, Judge.
The appellant, Mario Pierre (“Pierre”), filed a petition with the Florida Supreme Court attempting to invoke the Court’s all writs jurisdiction. The Florida Supreme Court transferred the petition to the circuit court for consideration as a motion for postconvietion relief pursuant to either Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 or 3.800(a). Although the trial court failed to articulate under which rule its denial was based, we affirm.
In his petition and this appeal, Pierre contests the life sentence imposed pursuant to a finding of guilt as to armed kidnapping.1 The life sentence imposed was an upward departure from the recommended sentencing guidelines based upon Pierre’s escalating pattern of criminal behavior. As Pierre’s life sentence on this count was an upward departure and the trial court failed to submit written reasons for imposing the upward departure, Pierre filed a motion to correct his sentence. Based upon this motion, the trial court conducted a hearing and signed the transcript of the original sentencing hearing, stating that the transcript would serve as the court’s written order. Pierre contends that his sentence is illegal because: (1) the trial court did not file a separate written order articulating its reason(s) for the departure sentence, and (2) the ground for the upward departure was determined by the trial court, not the jury.
We find that Pierre’s first claim, that the trial court erred by failing to file a written order articulating its grounds for imposing a departure sentence, has already been litigated and decided adversely to Pierre by this court. See Pierre v. State, 821 So. 2d 1174, 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (rejecting Pierre’s argument that his departure sentence must be vacated because the trial court failed to file written reasons within the time allowed under sentencing statute, where at hearing on Pierre’s motion to correct sentence, trial court signed the transcript of the original sentencing hearing, stating that the signed transcript would stand as the departure order) (citing Mandri v. State, 813 So. 2d 65 (Fla.2002)).
As to his second claim, Pierre relies on Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Ap-prendi, however, only applies to sentences which exceed the statutory maximum. See Glennon v. State, 937 So. 2d 1149, 1149 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Altman v. State, 852 So. 2d 870, 876 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). As the statutory maximum penalty for the crime of armed kidnapping is life imprisonment, Pierre’s sentence is not illegal based upon Apprendi.
While we recognize that the United States Supreme Court in Blakely extended application of Apprendi to sentences which exceed the recommended sentencing guidelines, even if the sentence imposed is less than the statutory maximum for the offense, Blakely was issued over two years after Pierre’s convictions and sentences became final and Blakely does not apply retroactively to sentences which became final prior to its issuance. See Hughes v. State, 901 So. 2d 837, 848 (Fla.2005).
Affirmed.
. Pierre was convicted after a jury trial of burglary, two counts of aggravated battery, and one count of armed kidnapping.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (U.S. 2004)
- Hughes v. State, 901 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 2005)
- Mandri v. State, 813 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 2002)
- H.D. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 852 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Pierre v. State, 821 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Glennon v. State, 937 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)