JOHN MICHAEL BUNTING, 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.
Bunting appeals his aggravated battery conviction and sentence, challenging the trial court's errors in indicating he pled guilty (when he was found guilty by jury), imposing an unauthorized restitution requirement, and failing to affix his fingerprints to the judgment as required by statute. The appellate court reverses and remands for resentencing.
The trial court erred in all three respects. The written judgment must accurately reflect that the defendant was found guilty by jury, not by plea. The restitution requirement was an unauthorized condition of sentencing that exceeded the trial court's authority under the law as it existed at the time of the offense. The trial court was also required to affix the defendant's fingerprints to the written judgment.
[1] A written judgment of guilt and sentence must accurately reflect the factual circumstances of the case, including the manner in which guilt was determined.
[2] Courts are prohibited from imposing punishments that exceed those established by the Legislature for criminal conduct.
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“The written judgment of guilt and sentence should reflect the true facts of the case.”
Establishes the fundamental requirement that judgments accurately reflect what actually occurred at trial
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBunting was found guilty of aggravated battery by a jury. The trial court sentenced him to incarceration and a fine, and additionally required him to …
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.
MOORE, Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence for the crime of aggravated battery. In his sentence the trial court indicated the appellant had pled guilty to the crime of aggravated battery when, in fact, he had been found guilty by a jury and in addition to a period of incarceration and fine the court required the appellant to make restitution to the victim for the victim’s medical expenses. The trial court also failed to cause appellant’s fingerprints to be affixed to the written judgment of guilt as required by Section 921.-241(1), Florida Statutes (1977). We agree with appellant’s , contentions that the trial court erred in sentencing appellant and reverse.
The written judgment of guilt and sentence should reflect the true facts of the case. In this instance, the written sentence should be corrected to reflect a finding of guilt by a jury as opposed to appellant’s having pled guilty.
Courts have no authority to exceed the punishment for criminal conduct as provided by the Legislature. With the exception of those matters which are within the inherent jurisdiction of the judiciary the determination of that conduct which shall constitute criminal conduct, and the punishment therefore, is the sole prerogative of the Legislative function of government and the judiciary, in sentencing an individual, must remain within the parameters established by the Legislature. While the trial courts enlightenment in this cause is noteworthy in view of recent legislation providing for the requirement of restitution in certain cases, such a requirement was not a prescribed means of punishment at the time of the commission of the crime in this case. It was therefore error to impose such a condition upon the appellant. See Holmes v. State, 342 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
Accordingly, the judgment of guilt and sentence is reversed and this cause is remanded to the trial court with instructions to readjudicate the defendant indicating a finding of guilt by the jury, eliminating the requirement of restitution, and obtaining the fingerprints of appellant on the written judgment of guilt as prescribed by Section 921.241(1), Florida Statutes (1977).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
CROSS and LETTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shaddix v. State, 599 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…egated to a probation officer. Larson v. State, 572 So. 2d 1368, 1371 (Fla.1991); Cisneros v. State, 422 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). We note the version of the restitution statute applicable at the time of the 1990 offense, see Bunting v. State, 361 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), requires the trial court to order restitution as a condition of probation “unless it finds clear and compelling reasons not to order such restitution.” See sections 775.-089(l)(a) and 948.03, Florida Statutes (1989). Any decisio…
-
Ferguson v. State, 460 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…not adjudicated guilty at the June 7, 1982 hearing. Subsequent written orders entered in Ferguson’s absence reflect an adjudication of guilt. Rule 3.180(a)(9) requires that the defendant be present when judgment is pronounced, and Bunting v. State, 361 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), states the written sentence should reflect the true facts of the case. It is clear, however, that adjudication of guilt may be withheld when a defendant is placed on probation. Rule 3.670, Fla.R.Crim.P. Ferguson was on probatio…
-
Gary v. State, 669 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…94-342, § 24, Laws of Fla. Because the restitution of the type imposed by the trial court was not a prescribed means of punishment at the time appellant committed his crimes in this case, it was error to impose such upon appehant. Bunting v. State, 361 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Accordingly, we reverse and remand with direction to strike the order imposing restitution pursuant to the Florida Civil Restitution Lien and Crime Victims’ Remedy Act of 1994. Appehant’s failure to object to the above order a…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Holmes v. State, 342 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)