OSTANE
v.
STATE
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 appealed a trial court order that granted in part his motion for resentencing under Florida law applicable to juvenile offenders. The Fifth District Court of Appeal held that although Ostane was entitled to judicial review of his sentence, the trial court erred by modifying his sentence without first conducting a resentencing hearing, and thus remanded for proper resentencing proceedings.
Yes. Although the trial court correctly determined that Ostane was entitled to judicial review, it erred by not conducting a resentencing hearing before modifying the sentence. The court must hold a resentencing hearing before any sentence modification.
[1] A trial court errs when it modifies a sentence to provide for a review hearing 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 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“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 that juvenile offenders have a constitutional entitlement to meaningful review of their sentences based on maturity and rehabilitation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 2001, Ostane, then seventeen years old, pled guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced to thirty years in prison, a sentence affirmed on appeal. Bas…
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 Motion For Resentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT DARA G. OSTANE, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D17-3087 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed June 22, 2018 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lake County, Don F. Briggs, Judge. Dara G. Ostane, Wewahitchka, pro se.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allison L. Morris and Pamela J. Koller, Assistant Attorneys General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
In 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 (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
- 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)
- Dara G. Ostane v. State, 245 So. 3d 1022 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)