KEITH SOANES, 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.
Keith Soanes was convicted of robbery with a firearm and sentenced to life as a violent career criminal. The appellate court affirmed the conviction but reversed the sentence, finding the trial court erroneously believed it lacked discretion to impose a sentence other than life imprisonment for a violent career criminal.
The trial court did not err in admitting the cropped photo array or in allowing the state's closing argument. However, the trial court erred at sentencing by believing it lacked discretion to depart from a violent career criminal sentence; Florida law permits the court to decline such a sentence if not necessary for public protection.
[1] A trial court does not err in admitting a photo array where the photograph has been cropped to remove any indication of the defendant being in jail attire.
[2] A prosecutor's closing argument referring to a defendant as a "liar" is permissible when understood from the context to be an argument based on the evidence presented.
Previewing 2 of 6 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 court must sentence the defendant as a violent career criminal, subject to imprisonment pursuant to this section unless the count finds that such sentence is not necessary for the protection of the public.”
Establishes that trial courts retain discretion to decline a violent career criminal sentence if not necessary for public protection
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKeith Soanes was convicted of robbery with a firearm. At sentencing, the trial court imposed a life sentence as a violent career criminal, stating it …
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 Violent Career Criminal Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
Keith Soanes (the “defendant”) appeals his conviction for robbery with a firearm and his sentence to life in prison as a violent career criminal. We affirm the conviction, but reverse the sentence and remand for resentencing.
We find no error in the trial court’s admission of a photo array where the photo was cropped to remove all indicia that the defendant was in jail attire. Baynham v. State, 937 So.2d 1195, 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). We also find no error in the state’s closing argument which the defendant claims effectively called him a “liar.” See Craig v. State, 510 So.2d 857, 865 (Fla.1987) (“When counsel refers to a ... defendant as being a ‘liar,’ and it is understood from the context that the charge is made with reference to testimony given by the person thus characterized, the prosecutor is merely submitting to the jury a conclusion that he is arguing can be drawn from the evidence.”). We further find that the state’s closing argument did not ridicule the defendant’s theory of defense. See De Jesus v. State, 684 So.2d 875, 876 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (“We think that these comments ... were within the range of appropriate advocacy and therefore not erroneous, much less so beyond the pale as to vitiate the trial entirely and require a new one.”).
However, the trial court erred during sentencing when it stated that it did not think it had any discretion other than to sentence the defendant to life in prison as a violent career criminal. Section 775.084(3)(c)5., Florida Statutes (2008), provides that, if the court determines the defendant meets the criteria for imposing such a sanction, “the court must sentence *915the defendant as a violent career criminal, subject to imprisonment pursuant to this section unless the count finds that such sentence is not necessary for the protection of the public.” § 775.084(3)(c)5., Fla. Stat. (2008) (emphasis added); see also Harris v. State, 849 So.2d 449, 450 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (“We remand this matter for resentencing because ... the trial judge mistakenly believed he was compelled to impose a violent career criminal sentence once the qualifying offenses were established.”). We are not convinced by the state’s arguments that the defendant invited or waived the sentencing error. See Westgate Miami Beach, Ltd. v. Newpont Operating Corp., 16 So.3d 855, 858 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (“It appears that the lawyers and the trial court were all operating under the same misapprehension of the law. Thus, the invited error doctrine ... [does] not provide the relief the plaintiff now seeks.”).
Therefore, we reverse the sentence and remand for resentencing, at which the trial court shall determine whether a violent career criminal sentence is or is not necessary for the protection of the public. The possibility of a life sentence as a violent career criminal remains within the trial court’s discretion.
Affirmed in pant, reversed in pant, and remanded for resentencing.
TAYLOR and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eustache v. State, 248 So. 3d 1097 (Fla. 2018)…n to reimpose a youthful offender sentence with no minimum mandatory. Because defendants generally must be sentenced by a court that is able to exercise its discretion and consider all of its options before imposing a sentence, see Soanes v. State , 31 So. 3d 914, 914-15 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) ; see also Munnerlyn v. State , 795 So. 2d 171, 171 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), this error warrants remand and resentencing. CONCLUSION We answer the certified question in the affirmative, quash the decision below, and disappr…
-
Treymone Goldwire v. State, 73 So. 3d 844 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…n. 8 (Fla.1999)). If the record does not show that the party invited error, the case should be remanded for re-sentencing so the trial court can examine its decision and determine whether it wants to impose a different sentence. See Soanes v. State, 31 So. 3d 914, 914-15 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). Here, the record is void of any indication that defense counsel was inviting error or if she was simply mistaken as well. Invited error typically occurs when the defendant is the beneficiary of some benefit at trial or s…
-
Mel Roucell Williams v. State, 249 So. 3d 721 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…ggests that the trial court mistakenly believed it had no discretion ... to sentence appellant,' the case should be remanded for 'the trial court [to] exercise its sentencing discretion and consider all sentencing alternatives.' "); Soanes v. State, 31 So. 3d 914, 914 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) ("[T]he trial court erred during sentencing when it stated that it did not think it had any discretion other than to sentence the defendant to life in prison as a violent career criminal."). REVERSED and REMANDED. SAWAYA,…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Craig v. State, 510 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 1987)
- de Jesus v. State, 684 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Harris v. State, 849 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Westgate Miami Beach, Ltd. v. Newport Operating Corp., 16 So. 3d 855 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
- Tilbert Baynham v. State, 937 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)