TYRONE RAHMINGS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Defendant's post-conviction motion for resentencing under Atwell v. State is remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine his correct date of birth and whether he was a juvenile at the time of the offenses, as a discrepancy exists between records showing December 5, 1962 versus December 5, 1963.
A case must be remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine the defendant's correct date of birth and juvenile status at the time of offenses when records contain conflicting dates affecting eligibility for resentencing relief under Atwell v. State.
[1] When records contain conflicting dates of birth affecting a defendant's eligibility for juvenile resentencing relief under Atwell v. …
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant Tyrone Rahmings committed offenses between March and May 1981. The arrest affidavit lists his date of birth as December 5, 1963, but the Flo…
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 Juvenile Offender cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant, Tyrone Rahmings, appeals from the trial court’s order denying his post-conviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. Defendant argues that reversal is warranted in light of Atwell v. State, 197 So.3d 1040 (Fla. 2016). The State concedes that on the face of the motion the case should be remanded for further proceedings but contends that any remand should be without prejudice to the trial court conducting an evidentiary hearing to determine Defendant’s age at the time of the offenses committed in ease numbers F81-8037A, F81-12617, and F81-12733. We agree.
The record reveals a discrepancy exists regarding the Defendant’s correct date of birth. The arrest affidavit contained in the record shows Defendant’s date of birth as December 5, 1963. The Florida Department of Corrections, however, lists Defendant’s date of birth as December 5, 1962. Because the offense dates for the Defendant’s crimes range from March to May 1981, upon remand, the trial court shall hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the Defendant’s correct date of birth and to determine whether Defendant was a juvenile at the time of the offenses. If Defendant’s date of birth proves to be December 6, 1962, Defendant would be ineligible for relief under Atwell. However, if Defendant’s date of birth proves to be December 5, 1963, the trial court shall resentence Defendant pursuant to the sentencing provisions enacted in chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida. See Atwell, 197 So.3d at 1050.
Reversed and remanded for evidentiary hearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Rahmings (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)…of State v. Yero, No. 19-192, 2021 WL 115440 (Fla. 3d DCA Jan. 13, 2021), we lack jurisdiction to adjudicate the State’s appeal of the trial court's June 13, 2019 order. We therefore dismiss the appeal.2 Appeal dismissed. 1 See Rahmings v. State, 224 So. 3d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“Rahmings I”). In Rahmings I, this Court concluded that, if Rahmings were determined to be a juvenile at the time he committed the offenses, he was entitled to be resentenced based upon the then-applicable Florida Supreme Court…
-
State v. Rahmings (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)…of State v. Yero, No. 19-192, 2021 WL 115440 (Fla. 3d DCA Jan. 13, 2021), we lack jurisdiction to adjudicate the State’s appeal of the trial court's June 13, 2019 order. We therefore dismiss the appeal.2 Appeal dismissed. 1 See Rahmings v. State, 224 So. 3d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“Rahmings I”). In Rahmings I, this Court concluded that, if Rahmings were determined to be a juvenile at the time he committed the offenses, he was entitled to be resentenced based upon the then-applicable Florida Supreme Court…
-
State v. Rahmings (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)…of State v. Yero, No. 19-192, 2021 WL 115440 (Fla. 3d DCA Jan. 13, 2021), we lack jurisdiction to adjudicate the State’s appeal of the trial court's June 13, 2019 order. We therefore dismiss the appeal.2 Appeal dismissed. 1 See Rahmings v. State, 224 So. 3d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“Rahmings I”). In Rahmings I, this Court concluded that, if Rahmings were determined to be a juvenile at the time he committed the offenses, he was entitled to be resentenced based upon the then-applicable Florida Supreme Court…
Authorities Cited
- Atwell v. State, 197 So. 3d 1040 (Fla. 2016)