RONALD JACKSON, 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.
Ronald Jackson appeals his conviction and 25-year sentence for armed robbery. The Florida appellate court affirmed the conviction but vacated the sentence because the trial judge impermissibly based the sentence, at least in part, on Jackson's failure to show remorse and his assertion of innocence, violating due process.
The trial court committed fundamental error and violated due process by basing the sentence on Jackson's lack of remorse and assertion of innocence. The 25-year sentence is therefore vacated and the case is remanded for resentencing before a different judge.
[1] A trial court errs by imposing a sentence based, in whole or in part, on a defendant's lack of remorse or failure to admit guilt.
[2] A defendant is entitled to resentencing before a different judge when the original judge impermissibly considers the defendant's claim of innocence as a factor in sentenc…
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“Mr. Jackson, you've been convicted by a jury of your peers, since you show no remorse or regret for any of your actions I'm going to sentence you to 25 years Florida State Prison.”
The trial judge's sentencing remarks that impermissibly conditioned the sentence on the defendant's lack of remorse and assertion of innocence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJackson was convicted by jury of armed robbery while actually possessing a firearm based largely on photo lineup identification evidence. Jackson made…
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 Fundamental Error cases and more on FLexlaw
Ronald Jackson appeals a conviction and sentence for armed robbery while actually possessing a firearm. We affirm without *428comment the trial court’s rulings made during the guilt phase of the trial. We vacate the 25-year prison sentence, however, because the trial court’s remarks immediately before pronouncing the sentence are reasonably construed as affirmatively punishing Jackson for failing to show any remorse or regret for any of his actions, thereby denying due process and fundamentally erring.
At sentencing, the trial court made several remarks, including the following:
Mr. Jackson, you’ve been convicted by a jury of your peers, since you show no remorse or regret for any of your actions I’m going to sentence you to 25 years Florida State Prison....
The evidence in this case, although sufficient to support a conviction, was not overwhelming, relying largely upon a photo lineup identification. Appellant made no admission of complicity in the crime charged. The statement made by the trial court can reasonably be read only as conditioning the sentence, at least in part, upon appellant’s claim of innocence, in violation of established law. See Nawaz v. State, 28 So.3d 122, 124-25 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (finding fundamental error where trial court based sentence partly on an impermissible ground); Whitmore v. State, 27 So.3d 168, 169-72 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (concluding that trial court’s reliance upon defendant’s continued 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.3d 132, 134-36 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (concluding that trial court’s improper consideration of defendant’s maintaining his innocence at trial and at sentencing denied due process and constituted fundamental error, compelling reversal of sentence and remand for resentencing, even though the original prison sentence fell within the scoresheet range); Bracero v. State, 10 So.3d 664, 665-66 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (concluding the trial court’s consideration of defendant’s continuing protestations of innocence as a factor in determining the length of his sentences violated due process, constituted fundamental error, and compelled reversal of sentences and remand for resentencing); Ritter v. State, 885 So.2d 413, 414-15 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (concluding that appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to raise due-process challenge to trial court’s considering defendant’s denial of guilt and assertion of innocence as grounds for imposing a prison sentence in excess of State’s recommendation but within the guidelines scoresheet range); A.S. v. State, 667 So.2d 994, 995-96 & n. 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (reversing and remanding final order committing subject to a juvenile facility, where the trial court impermissibly based its disposition of the case partly on the juvenile’s continuing to maintain his innocence and showing no remorse throughout the proceeding). Jackson is entitled to resentencing before a different judge. See Whitmore, 27 So.3d at 172.
We AFFIRM the conviction, VACATE the sentence, and REMAND with instructions to resentence Jackson before a different judge.
KAHN, ROWE, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
Yeshuwa Yisrael v. State, 65 So. 3d 1177 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…rmissible factors when imposing a sentence. See, e.g., Nawaz v. State, 28 So. 3d 122, 124-25 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (finding fundamental error where trial court appeared to base sentence partly on defendant’s national origin); Jackson v. State, [*1178] 39 So. 3d 427 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (finding fundamental error where court appeared 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…
-
Dinkines v. State, 122 So. 3d 477 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…A 2011) (finding that the record did not support the trial court’s finding of potential future dangerousness and therefore remanding for a nonstate prison sanction only).4 Resentencing shall be be [*482] fore a different judge. See Jackson v. State, 39 So. 3d 427 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Doty, 884 So. 2d at 551. Reversed and remanded with instructions. DAMOORGIAN, C.J., and CONNER, J., concur. . "Any person who knowingly gives false verification of ownership or gives a false or altered identification and who…
-
Demond Dumas v. State, 134 So. 3d 1048 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…ellant’s sentence. The court’s statement can reasonably be read only as conditioning the sentence, at least in part, on Appellant’s lack of remorse and claim of innocence, which is a violation of Appellant’s due process rights. See Jackson v. State, 39 So. 3d 427, 428 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (reversing a sentence because the trial court improperly based the defendant’s sentence on his lack of remorse); Nawaz v. State, 28 So. 3d 122, 124-25 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (finding that fundamental error occurred when the tri…
Previewing 3 of 20 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)
- Ritter v. State, 885 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- A.S. v. State, 667 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Irfan Nawaz v. State, 28 So. 3d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- Whitmore v. State, 27 So. 3d 168 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Hannum v. State, 13 So. 3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- Boyd v. State, 13 So. 3d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- Jiles v. State, 18 So. 3d 1216 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)