STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
IRA WILLIAMS, 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.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a sentence imposed under the 1988 Florida Sentencing Guidelines amendment, holding that applying the new guidelines to offenses committed before the amendment's effective date violates the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. The court required resentencing under the guidelines in effect when the offense was committed.
Application of the 1988 sentencing guidelines amendment to offenses committed before its enactment violates the ex post facto prohibition. The trial court must use the sentencing guidelines in effect at the time of the offense, and any downward departure requires supporting written reasons for the departure.
[1] Sentencing guidelines in effect at the time of the offense, not at the time of sentencing, must be applied to avoid violating the ex post facto doctrine.
[2] A law violates the ex post facto prohibition if it is retrospective and disadvantages the offender.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“although the application of the 1988 amendment in this case works to the advantage of the appellee, according to Weaver that is not the criterion by which the challenged provision must be judged”
Establishes that ex post facto analysis focuses on the provision itself, not individual circumstances or benefits to a particular defendant
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA trial court found the minor appellee suitable for adult sanctions for an offense committed prior to July 1, 1988. The sentencing guidelines recommen…
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 Florida Sentencing Guidelines cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We grant the petition for clarification to correct the scrivener’s error in the last paragraph and substitute the corrected following opinion for the original. In all other respects we deny the petition.
The issue involved in this appeal is whether the permissive ranges under Florida Sentencing Guidelines, effective July 1, 1988, can be applied to an offense prior to the effective date of the amendment.
In sentencing the minor appellee in this case, the trial court entered an order finding appellee to be suitable for adult sanctions. The sentencing guidelines recommended range was from twelve to seventeen years of incarceration.
However, although the crime upon which sentence was being passed was committed prior to July 1, 1988, the trial court utilized the permitted range provided in the 1988 amendment and sentenced appellee to nine years of incarceration with a three year mandatory minimum. This amounted to a downward departure of one cell under the old guidelines without the trial court giving written reasons for the departure. The state objected to the sentence, claiming that the trial court had to use the guideline in effect at the time of the commission of the offense.
Therefore, if the trial court elected a downward departure of the sentence, the court had to provide clear and convincing written reasons for the departure.
The state claims that sentencing the defendant under the guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing is a violation of the ex post facto doctrine and is thus prohibited in this case. Miller v. Florida, 482 U.S. 423, 107 S.Ct. 2446, 96 L.Ed.2d 351 (1987). In Miller, as in Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24,101 S.Ct. 960, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981), the Supreme Court used a two part test to determine whether a criminal law violates the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws.
First, the law must be retrospective, that is, it must apply to events occurring before its enactment; and second, it must disadvantage the offender affected by it.
However, it was made clear in Weaver that the inquiry looks to the challenged provision and not to any special circumstances that may mitigate its effect on the particular individual. See also Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282, 97 S.Ct. 2290, 53 L.Ed.2d 344 (1977).
Applying those two criteria to the July 1, 1988, sentencing guidelines, it is apparent that if the 1988 guidelines were applied to appellee’s offense, it would be a retrospective application. See State v. McGriff, 537 So. 2d 107 (Fla.1989).
As to the second prong, although the application of the 1988 amendment in this case works to the advantage of the appellee, according to Weaver that is not the criterion by which the challenged provision must be judged. Although there may be an advantage to some defendants waiting to be sentenced, other defendants will be disadvantaged because under the 1988 amendment the trial court can sentence one cell over what the sentencing guidelines allowed prior to the amendment without giving any written reasons for departure and without the right of appellate review. This is a substantial disadvantage which can make more onerous the punishment for crimes committed before its enactment.
Therefore, application of the 1988 amendment to crimes committed prior to its enactment violates the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws.
Based upon the foregoing, we are compelled to reverse the sentence imposed by the trial court and remand for resentencing in compliance with the sentencing guidelines in effect on the date of the offense. In the instant case, a downward departure will require supporting written reasons. See State v. Morales, 522 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
LETTS, GLICKSTEIN and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Rogers, 556 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…verse the sentence and remand for resentencing because in sentencing appellee the trial court relied on the guidelines in effect at the time of the sentence as opposed to those in effect at the time of the commission of the crime. State v. Williams, 546 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). We reject appellant’s challenge to the constitutionality of the statute under which he was convicted because he did not raise it in the trial court when he pled no contest and did not raise the issue below. Furthermore, the co…
-
Roberson v. State, 555 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…also McCaskell v. State, 542 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (amended rule 3.988 creating the permitted ranges was a substantive change in the law which should have prospective effect only for purposes of ex post facto clause). In State v. Williams, 546 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), the Fourth District Court of Appeal recently held that the permissive ranges could not be applied ex post facto to an offense occurring prior to the effective date of amended rule 3.988. The trial court in Williams had used the…
-
State v. Whiddon, 554 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…ender affected by it.” (Emphasis added, footnotes omitted.) Consequently, it is our opinion that the state has no standing to pursue an ex post facto challenge. Accord Roberson v. State, 553 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). But see State v. Williams, 546 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (court approved state’s ex post facto argument, without addressing issue of standing). Second, the application of the amended guidelines to Whiddon’s offenses, which occurred before the revised guidelines’ effective date, did no…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24 (U.S. 1981)
- Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282 (U.S. 1977)
- Miller v. Florida, 482 U.S. 423 (U.S. 1987)
- State v. McGRIFF, 537 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 1989)
- State v. Morales, 522 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)