DARA G. OSTANE, 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.
Dara Ostane, who was seventeen when he committed manslaughter and received a thirty-year sentence, appealed the trial court's order granting in part and denying in part his motion for resentencing under Florida's 2014 sentencing reform law. The appellate court held that while Ostane is entitled to judicial review of his sentence, the trial court erred by modifying his sentence without first holding a resentencing hearing.
The trial court correctly held that Ostane was entitled to judicial review, but erred in modifying the sentence without first conducting a resentencing hearing. The trial court must conduct a resentencing hearing before amending the sentence to provide for a review hearing.
[1] A trial court errs when it modifies a sentence pursuant to a motion for resentencing without first conducting a resentencing hearing.
[2] A defendant sentenced for an offense committed as a juvenile is entitled to an opportunity for early release that is meaningful, based on a demonstration of maturity and…
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“Based on recent decisions, Ostane is entitled to receive 'an opportunity for early release that is meaningful, based on a demonstration of maturity and rehabilitation, and during his or her natural life.'”
Establishes the constitutional entitlement of juvenile offenders to meaningful opportunity for early release
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOstane committed manslaughter in 2001 when he was seventeen years old and was sentenced to thirty years in prison. The sentencing was affirmed on dire…
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 Meaningful Opportunity For Early Release cases and more on FLexlaw
*1023In consideration of Dara Ostane's March 12, 2018 motion for rehearing, we grant the requested relief, withdraw our prior opinion, and substitute this opinion in its stead.
Dara Ostane appeals the trial court's order granting in part and denying in part his "Motion for Resentencing in Compliance with chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida," filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. On appeal, Ostane argues that the trial court erred when it modified his sentence without holding a resentencing hearing. We agree and remand for resentencing.
In 2001, Ostane pled guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced to thirty years in prison, which we affirmed on appeal. See Ostane v. State, 819 So.2d 793 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Ostane was seventeen years old at the time of the offense. Based on recent decisions, Ostane is entitled to receive "an opportunity for early release that is meaningful, based on a demonstration of maturity and rehabilitation, and during his or her natural life." Johnson v. State, 215 So.3d 1237 (Fla. 2017) ; see also Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010) ; Morris v. State, 43 Fla. L. Weekly S223 (Fla. May 10, 2018) ; Kelsey v. State, 206 So.3d 5 (Fla. 2016) ; Katwaroo v. State, 237 So.3d 446 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) ; Montgomery v. State, 230 So.3d 1256 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) ; Davis v. State, 230 So.3d 487 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) ; Burrows v. State, 219 So.3d 910 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) ; Tyson v. State, 199 So.3d 1087 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016).
The trial court correctly held that Ostane was entitled to judicial review. However, the trial court erred when it held that Ostane was not entitled to resentencing. We have stated, "[I]t [is] error for the trial court to amend the sentence to provide for a review hearing without first conducting a resentencing hearing." Katwaroo, 237 So.3d at 447 (citing Davis, 230 So.3d at 487) ; see also Morris, Fla. L. Weekly S223 ; Kelsey, 206 So.3d at 11. Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for the trial court to hold a resentencing hearing.
AFFIRMED in Part; REVERSED in Part; and REMANDED.
TORPY, WALLIS and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Graham v. Florida (1st Cir. 2010)
- Kelsey v. State, 206 So.3d 5 (Fla. 2016)
- Jessy J. Burrows v. State, 219 So. 3d 910 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)
- Johnson v. State, 215 So. 3d 1237 (Fla. 2017)
- Darrius Montgomery v. State, 230 So. 3d 1256 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)
- Deryck Lee Katwaroo v. State, 237 So. 3d 446 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Davis v. State, 230 So. 3d 487 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)
- Tyson v. State, 199 So. 3d 1087 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)
- Dara G. Ostane v. State, 245 So. 3d 1022 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)