TIMOTHY JAMES BRADSHAW
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 defendant appeals his thirty-month concurrent sentences for giving false information to a pawnbroker and dealing in stolen property. The court agreed that the trial judge improperly considered a subsequent arrest for cocaine possession that did not result in conviction during sentencing, and therefore vacated the sentences and remanded for resentencing.
A trial court may not consider a subsequent arrest without conviction during sentencing for a primary offense. The sentences are vacated and the case is remanded for resentencing before a different judge.
[1] A trial court is prohibited from considering a subsequent arrest without conviction during sentencing for the primary offense, even when the imposed sentence is within st…
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 intelligenceThe defendant was convicted of giving false information to a pawnbroker and dealing in stolen property, for which he received thirty-month concurrent …
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 Sentencing Considerations cases and more on FLexlaw
GERBER, C.J. The defendant appeals his thirty-month concurrent sentences for giving false information to a pawnbroker and dealing in stolen property, arguing that the circuit court improperly considered the defendant’s later arrest for possession of cocaine for which the defendant was not convicted because the state nolle prossed that charge. We agree with the defendant’s argument, and therefore vacate the sentences and remand for resentencing before a different judge. See Norvil v. State, 191 So. 3d 406, 410 (Fla. 2016) (“[A] trial court may not consider a subsequent arrest without conviction during sentencing for the primary offense.”); Smith v. State, 232 So. 3d 430, 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (“In light of Norvil, we have since vacated a defendant’s sentence and remanded for resentencing when a court considered subsequent crimes, even though the sentence was within the statutory limits.”); Hillary v. State, 232 So. 3d 3, 4-5 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (vacating sentences for primary offenses and remanding for resentencing before a different judge where court considered defendant’s later arrest without conviction).
Sentences vacated; remanded for resentencing.
MAY and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Norvil v. State, 191 So. 3d 406 (Fla. 2016)
- Hillary v. State, 232 So. 3d 3 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)
- Norris Smith v. State, 232 So. 3d 430 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)