JOHNNY TREVON COOK, 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.
The court affirmed the resentenced aggregate sentence but remanded for the trial court to enter required written findings regarding sentence review eligibility.
Appellant was resentenced to 70 years after a prior sentence was found unconstitutional. The trial court recognized eligibility for sentence review un…
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 Sentence Review cases and more on FLexlaw
In Cook v. State, 190 So.3d 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016), we affirmed appellant’s convictions but reversed for resentencing because appellant’s aggregate sentence of 93 years “did not give him a ‘meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation,’ and *269was thus unconstitutional.” Id. at 216 (quoting Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 75, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010)).
At the resentencing hearing on remand, the trial judge heard testimony and resen-tenced appellant to an aggregate sentence' of 70 years. The trial judge recognized that appellant would be entitled to a meaningful review of his sentence under section 921.1402, Florida Statutes (2016).
Neither the judgment nor the sentence documentation indicate that appellant is entitled to sentence review. Written findings are required by statute. See § 775.082(3)(b)2.c., Fla. Stat. (2016) (providing that “[t]he court shall make a written finding as to whether a person is eligible for a sentence review hearing under s. 921.1402(b) or (c).”) (emphasis added).
We reject appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on this direct appeal from the resentencing. The ineffectiveness complained of is not apparent on the face of the record. See Dennis v. State, 696 So.2d 1280 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). We affirm the sentence but remand for the trial court to enter the written finding referenced above.
Gerber, G.J., Gross and Kuntz, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alden Benjamin White v. State, 244 So. 3d 1130 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
-
Lacue v. State, 270 So. 3d 413 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)…for the trial court to provide for sentence review. See § 775.082(1)(b)3., Fla. Stat. (2017) (“The court shall make a written finding as to whether a person is eligible for a sentence review hearing under s. 921.1402(2)(a) or (c).”); Cook v. State, 225 So. 3d 268, 269 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (affirming the sentence but remanding for the trial court to enter the written finding required by the applicable provision of section 775.082, Florida Statutes). Affirmed and remanded with instructions. MAY, CIKLIN and KL…
-
Brown v. State, 235 So. 3d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…indings that Brown is entitled to sentence review as required by section 775.082(3)(a)(5)(c). Accordingly, we must remand for the trial court to make the necessary written findings regarding Brown’s entitlement to sentence review. See Cook v. State, 225 So. 3d 268, 269 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017); Cutts v. State, 225 So. 3d 244, 245-46 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017); see also Hawkins v. State, 219 So. 3d 982 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). Affirmed and remanded with directions. KELLY and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Graham v. Florida (1st Cir. 2010)
- Shawanna Dennis v. State, 696 So. 2d 1280 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Cook v. State, 190 So. 3d 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)