BENJAMIN ROBINSON, 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.
A sentencing court cannot factor a defendant's continued protestation of innocence or lack of remorse into sentencing.
The defendant, representing himself, was convicted of selling cocaine near a place of worship and sentenced below the statutory maximum. At sentencing…
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 Protestation Of Innocence cases and more on FLexlaw
The issue raised on appeal is the trial court’s consideration of Robinson’s continued protestation of innocence and lack of remorse at sentencing. Acknowledging the State’s implicit concession of error, we reverse for resentencing before a different judge.
Robinson represented himself at trial on a charge of selling cocaine within 1000 feet of a place of worship.1 A review of the transcript reflects the trial judge was immensely patient with an obstreperous defendant. Despite the fact that Robinson had been convicted of the first-degree felony and had been dealing drugs since the mid-1980s, the judge imposed a sentence of five years in the Department of Corrections — well below the thirty-year statutory maximum.2 At sentencing, Robinson maintained his innocence. The court, prompted by the assistant state attorney, noted, “You’ve never expressed, as the 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 2007) (holding court may consider defendant’s lack of remorse where defendant does not contest his commission of crime at sentencing). Thus, we are compelled to reverse and remand for resentencing before a different judge.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
GRIFFIN and BERGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Futo Charles v. State, 204 So. 3d 63 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…to consideration in imposing sentence.” St. Val v. State, 958 So. 2d 1146, 1146-47 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). Now, a defendant cannot be punished for a lack of remorse if that factor impinges on the right against self-incrimination. See Robinson v. State, 108 So. 3d 1150, 1151 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013); Green v. State, 84 So. 3d 1169, 1171-72 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). Similarly, although restitution for victims of crime is a goal of the criminal law, a court violates the due process clause if it fashions a sentence that incénti…
-
Peters v. State, 128 So. 3d 832 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…to admit guilt should not be factors taken into consideration by a court in sentencing a defendant.”). These cases also indicate that it is “generally improper for the sentencing court to consider the defendant’s lack of remorse.” Robinson v. State, 108 So. 3d 1150, 1151 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). These holdings emanated from cases where a defendant consistently maintained his innocence. See Hannum v. State, 13 So. 3d 132, 135-36 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Donaldson v. State, 16 So. 3d 314 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Gilchrist v.…
-
Rankin v. State, 174 So. 3d 1092 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…e in Holton and applied it in cases which “indicate that it is ‘generally im [*1097] proper for the sentencing court to consider the defendant’s lack of remorse.’ ” Peters v. State, 128 So. 3d 832, 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (quoting Robinson v. State, 108 So. 3d 1150, 1151 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)). The idea is that -while “remorse and an admission of guilt may be grounds for •mitigation of sentence, the opposite is not 'true.” Brown, 27 So. 3d at 183 (quoting Ritter, 885 So. 2d at 414); Gilchrist v. State, 938 So. 2…
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
- Green v. State, 84 So. 3d 1169 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)
- Blanchard ST. VAL v. State, 958 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Jiles v. State, 18 So. 3d 1216 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)