ROBERT JOSHUA WILSON, 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.
Robert Joshua Wilson appeals the denial of his postconviction motion challenging his sentence as a prison releasee offender (PRR). The court affirms the denial of two grounds but reverses on the first ground, holding that Wilson is entitled to a de novo resentencing hearing with counsel present after his PRR designation was determined to be illegal.
Wilson is entitled to a de novo resentencing hearing for his burglary conviction with counsel present and an opportunity to present mitigating evidence. The trial court erred in amending the sentence without ordering a new sentencing hearing and permitting Wilson and his counsel to be present.
[1] A defendant is entitled to a de novo resentencing when a prior prison release reoffender sentence is determined to be illegal.
[2] When a defendant successfully challenges an illegal prison release reoffender sentence, the defendant is entitled to be present at resentencing, represented by counsel, w…
Previewing 2 of 3 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. Wilson is correct. See Gorham v. State, 988 So.2d 152, 154 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (holding that when a PRR sentence is determined to be illegal, the defendant is entitled to a de novo resentencing).”
Establishes the core holding that Wilson is entitled to a resentencing hearing after the illegal PRR designation is removed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn April 16, 2002, a jury convicted Wilson of burglary of a conveyance with assault or battery, carjacking, and fleeing or attempting to elude a law e…
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 De Novo Resentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
Robert Joshua Wilson appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm without comment the postconviction court’s order summarily denying grounds two and three of the motion. We treat ground one of Mr. Wilson’s motion as filed under rule 3.800(a), and we reverse the postconviction court’s order on ground one and remand for resentencing.
On April 16, 2002, a jury found Mr. Wilson guilty of burglary of a conveyance with an assault or battery, carjacking, and fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer. The trial court imposed non discretionary prison releasee reoffen-der (PRR) sentences of life and thirty years’ imprisonment for the burglary and carjacking convictions respectively and fifteen years’ imprisonment for the fleeing or attempting to elude conviction. In 2011, in an appeal from the denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence under rule 3.800(a), this court held that Mr. Wilson could not be sentenced as a PRR for the burglary of a conveyance, and we reversed the postconviction court’s order. Wilson v. State, 76 So.3d 332, 335 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). On remand, the trial court entered an order granting Mr. Wilson’s motion to correct an illegal sentence and removed the PRR designation.
In his subsequent motion for postconviction relief, Mr. Wilson argued, in part, that the trial court erred in amending his sentence without ordering a new sentencing hearing and permitting Mr. Wilson and his counsel to be present at that hearing. Mr. Wilson is correct. See Gorham v. State, 988 So.2d 152, 154 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (holding that when a PRR sentence is determined to be illegal, the defendant is entitled to a de novo resentencing).1 Accordingly, we reverse ground one of the postconviction court’s order and remand for a de novo resentencing for Mr. Wilson’s burglary of a conveyance conviction. See Evans v. State, 909 So.2d 424, 426 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (holding that when a *845movant successfully challenges an illegal PRR sentence in a rule 3.800(a) motion, at resentencing, the movant is entitled to “be present at sentencing, represented by counsel, with an opportunity to present mitigating evidence”).2
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing.
ALTENBERND and MORRIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Clemons v. State, 816 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Gorham v. State, 988 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
- Amos D. Evans, Sr. v. State, 909 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Wilson v. State, 76 So. 3d 332 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)