CHRIS ERIC CHATMAN, 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.
Chris Eric Chatman appealed his conviction and sentence, challenging the sufficiency of evidence and alleging the trial judge impermissibly considered his credibility when imposing the maximum sentence. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction but found fundamental error in the sentencing phase and remanded for resentencing before a different judge.
The court affirmed the sufficiency of the evidence supporting conviction. On the sentencing issue, the court held that it is impermissible for a trial judge to consider a defendant's veracity when making a sentencing decision, and that doing so violates due process.
[1] A trial court commits fundamental error when it considers a defendant's veracity when imposing a sentence.
[2] A defendant is denied due process when a trial court expressly considers improper factors, such as the defendant's truthfulness, in 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“it is impermissible for a trial judge to consider a defendant's veracity when rendering a sentencing decision”
Establishes the legal rule that was violated by the trial court's conduct
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChatman was convicted at trial. During sentencing, the trial judge expressed disbelief in Chatman's testimony, stating that his explanations were not …
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
Appellant raises two issues on appeal. He contends that the evidence at trial was insufficient to sustain his conviction, and also that fundamental error was committed by the trial court when it considered the truthfulness of his testimony when imposing sentence. We affirm the first issue without further comment. With regard to the second issue, it is impermissible for a trial judge to consider a defendant’s veracity when rendering a sentencing decision. Robinson v. State, 637 So.2d 998, 999 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Carswell v. State, 75 So.3d 419 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Before announcing Appellant’s sentence, the court stated:
Part of justice is the' justice system. And what I find offensive, not personally, doesn’t really affect me personally, but from the system’s standpoint is [Na-kia’s] blatant lying from the stand and your lying to me today because you’re not telling me the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. You’re handing me a pile of dung. I mean, you know, I don’t believe for a second whatever the story is that you just followed her down the road, or she followed you down the road, or she followed you, or whatever. I mean, it’s just beyond belief. It’s just not believable. It’s not believable that you didn’t have the fight ...
Be that as it may, [Appellant], you know, you’ve just got a history of getting in trouble and being in trouble and, you know, if what you say is true, that you’re a devoted family then what were you doing with the [the victim]. If what you’re saying is that you were a devoted family man then why put yourself in the position in the first place? If you’re such a devoted family man, why were you even fighting with [the victim], knowing that with your record, and if you say [the victim’s] been out to get you for all of this time, why would you put yourself in a position where she could get you again. I mean, you know, you just—your explanations defy belief. So I think that the maximum sentence possible is what is appropriate here.
(Emphasis added.) Because the trial court expressly considered these improper factors in sentencing, Appellant was denied due process, and fundamental error was committed. See also, Smith v. State, 62 So.3d 698, 699 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2011); Jackson v. State, 39 So.3d 427, 428 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). Accordingly, we affirm Ap*929pellant’s conviction, but remand for resen-tencing before a different judge.
AFFIRMED- in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for resentencing.
MAKAR, JAY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jackson v. State, 39 So. 3d 427 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- Smith v. State, 62 So. 3d 698 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)
- Robinson v. State, 637 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Carswell v. State, 75 So. 3d 419 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)