IBES GOMEZ
v.
THE 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 appellate court reversed the trial court's sentencing orders, finding that the trial court failed to follow the appellate court's prior mandates. The trial court improperly re-imposed the same sentence without a full sentencing hearing after convictions were vacated, despite clear instructions to do so.
Yes, the trial court erred. The trial court was not authorized to deviate from the appellate court's instructions and failed to conduct a full sentencing hearing, which was required.
[1] A trial court must follow the specific mandates of an appellate court's instructions on remand.
[2] When an appellate court remands for resentencing after vacating convictions, the trial court must conduct a full sentencing hearing and allow the defendant to present evi…
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“Because the deletion of these convictions will affect the scoring of the defendant and may affect the sentencing decision of the trial court, we remand for the preparation of a corrected scoresheet and the resentencing of the defendant.”
This quote establishes the original mandate from the appellate court to correct the scoresheet and resentence the defendant.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant appealed sentencing orders in five cases, arguing the trial court disregarded prior appellate mandates. In previous appeals, convictions…
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 Aggravated Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
LOBREE, J.
The defendant, Ibes Gomez, appeals from the sentencing orders in these five cases, arguing that the trial court failed to follow our mandates from prior appeals.
We agree and reverse.1 In Gomez v. State, 220 So. 3d 495, 498 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (Gomez I), based upon our double jeopardy jurisprudence, we vacated the defendant’s convictions for grand theft in cases F14-22387 and F15-1546, ordering that they be deemed “as the ‘lesser offenses’ of organized fraud” in those cases. “Because the deletion of these convictions will affect the scoring of the defendant and may affect the sentencing decision of the trial court,” we also remanded “for the preparation of a corrected scoresheet and the resentencing of the defendant.” Id. at 500.
Upon remand, the trial court failed to follow this mandate. In a second proceeding, we held that it was error for the trial court to allow the defendant to vacate his guilty plea and convictions. State v. Gomez, 247 So. 3d 592, 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (Gomez II).
We again remanded for a “reconsider[ation of] the sentence based on a correct scoresheet.” Id. at 595.
In this appeal, the record shows that, after vacating the defendant’s convictions for grand theft in cases F14-22387 and F15-1546, the new scoresheet substantially changed the defendant’s exposure, resulting in a lowest permissible sentence of 27.075 months instead of the original 42.
However, the trial court failed
to conduct a full sentencing hearing and re-imposed the same aggregate sentence, without affording the defendant an opportunity to present evidence in mitigation, instead only allowing him to offer legal argument concerning mitigating factors.2 The trial judge was “not authorized to deviate from the terms of [our] instructions.” State v. Perez-Diaz, 232 So. 3d 1072, 1072-73 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). To prevent any confusion, on remand, our instructions to the trial court remain that, having vacated the defendant’s convictions for grand theft in cases F14-22387 and F15-1546, it must conduct a full sentencing hearing on all remaining convictions and afford the defendant the opportunity to present evidence in mitigation, with his presence and the assistance of counsel. Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Yanker Perez-Diaz, 232 So. 3d 1072 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
- State v. Gomez, 247 So. 3d 592 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
- Ibes Gomez v. State, 220 So. 3d 495 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)