DANIEL HEATLY, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Daniel Heatly petitioned for relief from appellate counsel ineffectiveness after conviction for first-degree arson and burglary. The court found merit in his claim that appellate counsel failed to raise that the trial court impermissibly considered his maintenance of innocence during sentencing, constituting fundamental error requiring reversal and resentencing.
Appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise this issue. The trial court impermissibly considered Heatly's maintenance of innocence during sentencing, which constitutes fundamental error and a denial of due process. Accordingly, Heatly's sentences are reversed and remanded for resentencing before a different judge.
[1] A trial court commits fundamental error when it considers a defendant's continued assertion of innocence as a factor in imposing sentence.
[2] Appellate counsel is ineffective for failing to raise on appeal the fundamental error of a trial court considering a defendant's assertion of innocence 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“appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to argue on appeal that the trial court impermissibly considered the fact that the defendant maintained his innocence before imposing sentence”
Establishes the legal standard for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in sentencing context
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA jury convicted Heatly of first-degree arson and burglary of an unoccupied dwelling. The trial court sentenced him as a habitual felony offender to l…
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 Petition For Ineffective Assistance Of Appellate Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
Daniel Heatly has filed a timely petition under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(d) alleging that appellate counsel was ineffective. We find merit only in ground one of his petition; we deny ground two.
A jury convicted Mr. Heatly as charged of first-degree arson and burglary of an unoccupied dwelling. The trial court sentenced him as a habitual felony offender to life imprisonment with a thirty-year mandatory minimum term as a prison releasee reoffender on the arson count, to be served concurrently with thirty years’ imprisonment with a fifteen-year mandatory minimum term as a prison releasee reoffender on the burglary count.
In ground one of his petition, Mr. Heatly argues that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to argue on appeal that the trial court committed fundamental error in sentencing him when it considered the impermissible factor that he continued to maintain his innocence. See Ritter v. *585 State, 885 So.2d 413, 414 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (holding that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to argue on appeal that the trial court impermissibly considered the fact that the defendant maintained his innocence before imposing sentence). The State responds that the trial court did not rely on' Mr. Heatly’s protestations of innocence. - We disagree. At the beginning of the sentencing hearing, the court said it ’paid particular attention to Mr. Heatly’s statement in the presentence investigation (PSI) report. Later in the hearing, the court said, “And then he says, and I’m reading from the PSI, I keep referring back to this, he still won’t own up to it.” See Gage v. State, 147 So.3d 1020, 1022 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (stating that reliance upon improper sentencing factors such as assertions of innocence is a denial of due process that constitutes fundamental error); accord Smith v. State, 62 So.3d 698, 699 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). If appellate counsel had raised this issue on appeal, we would have been constrained to reverse. Accordingly, because a new appeal would be redundant, we reverse Mr. Heatly’s sentences and remand for resentencing before a different judge. See Smith, 62 So.3d at 700; Ritter, 885 So.2d at 415.
Petition granted in part and denied in part.
WALLACE, CRENSHAW, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Daniel Leon Heatley a K a Daniel Leon Heatly v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Ritter v. State, 885 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Smith v. State, 62 So. 3d 698 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)
- Gage v. State, 147 So. 3d 1020 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)