ELLIOT KATZ, 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.
Katz appeals an increased sentence imposed after the trial court discovered he and his wife made false statements at the original sentencing hearing. The court holds that despite the fraud, the trial court lacked authority to increase the sentence under the Double Jeopardy Clause, and the original sentence must be reinstated.
No. A trial court lacks the authority to increase a sentence, even upon discovering fraud by the defendant at sentencing, because resentencing to a longer term violates the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The proper remedies for such fraud are contempt proceedings or a perjury charge if the false statements were made under oath.
[1] A court cannot increase a previously imposed sentence after the defendant has begun serving it, as doing so violates the double jeopardy clause.
[2] A court's authority to amend a sentence is limited to mitigation, not increase, to avoid subjecting a defendant to double punishment for the same offense.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The distinction that the court during the same term may amend a sentence so as to mitigate the punishment, but not so as to increase it, is not based upon the ground that the court has lost control of the judgment in the latter case, but upon the ground that to increase the penalty is to subject the defendant to double punishment for the same offense in violation of the Fifth Amendment”
Establishes the constitutional prohibition on sentence increases under Double Jeopardy principles
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKatz pled guilty to auto theft. At sentencing, Katz and his wife made false and misleading statements that influenced the judge to impose a light sent…
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 Fraud On The Court cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Judge.
The issue presented by this appeal is whether the court has the power to increase a previously entered sentence upon the ground that the defendant perpetrated a fraud upon the court during the sentencing hearing.
Appellant pled guilty to auto theft. At the sentencing hearing, appellant and his wife made various false statements which clearly influenced the judge to give appellant a light sentence. A written sentence of six months to two years was entered.
Shortly thereafter, it came to the court’s attention that certain statements made by appellant and his wife at the sentencing hearing were false and misleading. The following day, the judge brought appellant back before him, stating that he was reconsidering the sentence imposed. Expressing the belief that the appellant’s behavior constituted a fraud upon the court, the judge imposed a new sentence of six months to four years. This is an appeal from the increased sentence.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held resentencing on the same charge to be a violation of the double jeopardy clause of the U.S. Constitution; Ex Parte Lange, 1874, 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 163, 21 L.Ed. 872; United States v. Benz, 1931, 282 U.S. 304, 51 S.Ct. 113, 75 L.Ed. 354. The Florida Supreme Court expressly followed these opinions in Troupe v. Rowe, Fla.1973, 283 So. 2d 857. The court quoted in part from Benz, stating:
“ ‘The distinction that the court during ¡ the same term may amend a sentence so as to mitigate the punishment, but not so: as to increase it, is not based upon the ground that the court has lost control of the judgment in the latter case, but upon the ground that to increase the penalty is to subject the defendant to double pun-' ishment for the same offense in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which provides that no person shall “be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb”. This is the basis of the decision in Ex Parte Lange, supra.’ ”
It should be noted that RCrP 3.800 permits the reduction of a sentence within a limited period of time, but the rule does not purport to give the court the authority to increase a sentence. Once appellant began to serve his sentence, the court had no authority to resentence him to a longer prison term. Beckom v. State, Fla.App.2d, 1969, 227 So. 2d 232. When the judge discovered the appellant’s misrepresentations, the proper course to take was to hold him in contempt, or if the statements were made, under oath, to recommend a charge of perjury. See Martin v. Case, Fla.App. 4th, 1970, 231 So. 2d 279.
The sentence from which this appeal is taken is hereby vacated, and the case is remanded for the reinstatement of the original sentence.
McNULTY, C. J., and SCHEB, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
Goene v. State, 577 So. 2d 1306 (Fla. 1991)…37, 338 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), in which the district court certified the following question as one of great public importance: Are the holdings in Senior v. State, 502 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 511 So. 2d 299 (Fla.1987); Katz v. State, 335 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); and Doe v. State, 492 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), valid, in light of the enactment of the sentencing guidelines, for the reason that a complete and accurate prior criminal record of a defendant is essential to a proper comput…1 / 4
-
Hinton v. State, 446 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…n 9, of the Florida Constitution both provide that no person shall be put in jeopardy more than once for the same criminal offense. This court has previously held that resentencing on the same charge is a violation of double jeopardy. Katz v. State, 335 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); see also United States v. Benz, 282 U.S. 304, 51 S.Ct. 113, 75 L.Ed. 354 (1931); Troupe v. Rowe, 283 So. 2d 857 (Fla.1973). Once a defendant begins to serve his sentence, the court has no authority to resentence him to a longer t…
-
Cherry v. State, 439 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…o. 2d 857 (Fla.1973); Royal v. State, 389 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Gonzalez v. State, 384 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Andrews v. State, 357 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Flowers v. State, 351 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Katz v. State, 335 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). The few instances where the increase has been upheld include Rizzo v. State, 430 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), where the judge was allowed to correct a slip of the tongue, even though it meant an enhanced sentence. In Jolly v.…
Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163 (U.S. 1873)
- United States v. Benz, 282 U.S. 304 (U.S. 1931)
- Flazell Troupe v. The Honorable Ellen Morphonios Rowe & the Honorable Paul Baker, 283 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 1973)
- Beckom v. State, 227 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- Martin v. Case, 231 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)