KEVIN A. JILES, 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.
Kevin Jiles appeals his convictions for burglary with a firearm, false imprisonment with a firearm, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The court affirmed his convictions but reversed his sentences because the trial judge improperly considered Jiles' maintenance of innocence and refusal to accept responsibility as sentencing factors.
The court affirmed Jiles' convictions but reversed his sentences, holding that the trial judge's consideration of Jiles' maintenance of innocence and denial of involvement as sentencing factors violated his due process rights and constituted improper sentencing considerations requiring resentencing before a different judge.
[1] A trial court commits an improper sentencing consideration by penalizing a defendant for maintaining their innocence at trial and during sentencing.
[2] A defendant's refusal to admit guilt or accept responsibility for their actions is an impermissible factor for a trial court to consider during sentencing.
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“the judge credited a co-defendant for "accepting responsibility for what he did and ... [being] willing to take the hit for what he did without going through the process." By contrast, the judge noted that Jiles did not "accept responsibility" but "denied [his] involvement." These are improper sentencing considerations.”
Establishes the specific improper sentencing conduct by the trial judge
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJiles was convicted of burglary of a dwelling with a firearm, false imprisonment with a firearm, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. At …
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 Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
Kevin A. Jiles appeals his convictions and sentences for burglary of a dwelling with a firearm, false impi-isonment with a firearm and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. We find no revei-sible error relating to Jiles’ trial, and affirm the convictions without elaboration. However, we agree with Jiles that the sentencing record reflects a consideration by the court of improper sentencing factors. Specifically, after Jiles maintained his innocence at trial and dui-ing sentencing, the judge ci-edited a co-defendant for “accepting] responsibility for what he did and ... [being] willing to take the hit for what he did without going through the process.” By contrast, the judge noted that Jiles did not “accept x-esponsibility” but “denied [his] involvement.” These are improper sentencing considerations. See, e.g., Hannum v. State, 13 So.3d 132, 135-36 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (holding trial court’s improper considei-ation during sentencing of fact that defendant maintained his innocence at trial and at sentencing and refused to take responsibility for his actions was equivalent to a denial of due process and thus constituted fundamental error); Bracero v. State, 10 So.3d 664, 665-66 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (holding that consideration of claim of innocence as a factor in determining sentences violated defendant’s due process rights); Soto v. State, 874 So.2d 1215, 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (holding that defendant’s protestation of innocence and unwillingness to admit guilt were impex-missi-ble considerations for sentencing, and that a trial court’s statements indicating consideration of those factors required reversal for resentencing before another judge).
*1217Accordingly, we reverse the sentences and remand with directions that Jiles be resentenced before a different judge.
CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED; SENTENCES REVERSED; REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
LAWSON, EVANDER and COHEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jackson v. State, 39 So. 3d 427 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…protestation of innocence at sentencing, which the judge viewed as a lack of remorse and denial of responsibility, was an impermissible basis for imposing the maximum sentence, denied due process, and constituted fundamental error); Jiles v. State, 18 So. 3d 1216 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (reversing sentence and remanding for resentencing before a different judge because original judge improperly based sentence upon defendant’s denying his involvement and failing to accept responsibility); Hannum v. State, 13 So.…
-
Robinson v. State, 108 So. 3d 1150 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…he State has indicated, any remorse and still claim you were innocent. I don’t believe that claim for a second.” It is improper for a sentencing court to factor into sentencing the fact that a defendant has maintained his innocence. Jiles v. State, 18 So. 3d 1216, 1216 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). It is also generally improper for the sentencing court to consider the defendant’s lack of remorse. See Green v. State, 84 So. 3d 1169, 1171 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012); but see St. Val v. State, 958 So. 2d 1146, 1147 (Fla. 4th DCA…
-
Avery Corbitt v. State, 220 So. 3d 446 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…because due process guarantees an individual the right to maintain innocence even when faced with evidence of overwhelming guilt. 573 So. 2d 284, 292 (Fla.1990); see also Robinson v. State, 108 So. 3d 1150, 1151 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013); Jiles v. State, 18 So. 3d 1216, 1216 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); K.N.M., 793 So. 2d at 1198; Peters v. State, 128 So. 3d 832, 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Green v. State, 84 So. 3d 1169, 1171-72 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012); Holt v. State, 33 So. 3d 811, 812 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); Ritter v. State, 885…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bracero v. State, 10 So. 3d 664 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- Soto v. State, 874 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)
- Hannum v. State, 13 So. 3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- Boyd v. State, 13 So. 3d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)