DAVID PUZIO
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.
On remand from the Florida Supreme Court, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed its prior decision and remanded the case for de novo resentencing of Puzio on first-degree murder counts. The supreme court had quashed the appellate court's decision to impose a ministerial correction of sentences under section 775.082(1)(b)2., holding that Williams v. State requires a full de novo resentencing rather than a ministerial correction.
The court reversed its prior decision and remanded for de novo resentencing on the first-degree murder counts under section 775.082(1)(b)2. A ministerial correction, despite the trial court's statement that it would impose the same sentence, does not satisfy the de novo resentencing requirement mandated by Williams v. State.
[1] When a jury has not found beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant killed or intended to kill the victims, a trial court may not impose a sentence under section 775.082…
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 intelligence“a ministerial correction of the defendant's sentences under section 775.082(1)(b)(2) would fall short of the de novo resentencing which Williams requires”
The supreme court's reasoning for quashing the prior district court decision
Puzio was originally sentenced under section 775.082(1)(b)1., Florida Statutes (2017), on first-degree murder charges. During the resentencing hearing…
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 Harmful Error Analysis cases and more on FLexlaw
In Puzio v. State, 278 So. 3d 82 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (“Puzio I”), we concluded the trial court erred when resentencing the defendant under section 775.082(1)(b)1., Florida Statutes (2017), because “no jury has found beyond a reasonable doubt that he actually killed, intended to kill, or attempted to kill the victims.” Id. at 85-86. We further held the error was harmful because “[t]he record does not demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant killed, intended to kill, or attempted to kill the victim[s].” Id. at 86. However, rather than remanding for a de novo resentencing under section 775.082(1)(b)2., Florida Statutes (2017), pursuant to Williams v. State, 242 So. 3d 280 (Fla. 2018), we remanded for ministerial correction of the defendant’s sentences under section 775.082(1)(b)2. because, during the resentencing hearing, the trial court already had stated “it equally finds a sixty-year sentence appropriate under section 775.082(1)(b)(2) in light of the facts of this case,” thus conclusively showing the trial court would have imposed the same sentence. Id.
In Puzio v. State, No. SC19-1511, 2021 WL 2583946 (Fla. June 24, 2021) (“Puzio II”), our supreme court quashed Puzio I and remanded to this court with instructions to remand to the trial court for a de novo resentencing as required by Williams. Puzio II, 2021 WL 2583946, at *1. Our supreme court reasoned that, despite the trial court’s statement, a ministerial correction of the defendant’s sentences under section 775.082(1)(b)2. would fall short of the de novo resentencing which Williams requires. Id.
Based on the foregoing, we reverse and remand to the trial court for a de novo resentencing as required by Williams on the first degree murder counts under section 775.082(1)(b)2., Florida Statutes (2017). We affirm on the defendant’s other arguments without further discussion.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for de novo resentencing as instructed.
CONNER, C.J., and METZGER, ELIZABETH, Associate Judge, concur. * * * No further motions for rehearing shall be permitted.