LAYDANI MARTINEZ, 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.
Martinez appeals his conviction for escape and possessing contraband in prison, challenging the trial court's use of a Category 9 sentencing scoresheet that resulted in a 22-year sentence rather than the more lenient Category 8 scoresheet. He claims this sentencing methodology violated his equal protection rights, but the court affirms the conviction and denies his motion for rehearing and certification to the Florida Supreme Court.
The court affirms the sentence and rejects the equal protection challenge, holding that Martinez failed to demonstrate that the inclusion of possession of contraband offenses in the Category 9 scoresheet has no conceivable basis in differences of conditions sufficient to justify the statutory regulation.
[1] A defendant must object to the use of a particular scoresheet in the trial court to preserve an equal protection argument regarding sentencing for that scoresheet on appe…
[2] A party alleging unjust discrimination in violation of constitutional provisions bears the burden of demonstrating that the alleged discrimination lacks any conceivable b…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Complying with rule 3.701(d)(3), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, the trial court used the scoresheet resulting in the most severe sentencing range and sentenced appellant to 22 years in prison.”
Establishes the sentencing methodology challenged on appeal and the resulting sentence imposed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMartinez was convicted of escape and possessing contraband in prison, both second-degree felonies under Florida law. Under the sentencing guidelines, …
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
SMITH, Justice.
This cause was affirmed “Per Curiam” without opinion on October 12, 1989, 550 So. 2d 469. In his motion for rehearing, appellant has requested that the issue presented in this case be certified to the supreme court as one of great public importance.
Appellant was convicted of escape and possessing contraband in prison. Both are offenses proscribed by Chapter 944, Florida Statutes, and are second degree felonies. Scoring escape as the primary offense at conviction on a Category 8 scoresheet results in a presumptive guideline sentence of 3½ to 4½ years. Scoring possession of contraband as the primary offense at conviction on a Category 9 scoresheet results in a presumptive guideline sentence of 20 to 27 years. Complying with rule 3.701(d)(3), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, the trial court used the scoresheet resulting in the most severe sentencing range and sentenced appellant to 22 years in prison. See Spann v. State, 14 F.L.W. 2486, 550 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); State v. Davis, 537 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); and Williams v. State, 501 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).
On appeal, appellant complains that use of the Category 9 scoresheet to sentence him denied him equal protection of the law. Appellant argues that there is no distinction between escape and possessing contraband which justifies a sentence for possessing contraband quintuple that of the presumptive sentence for escape. However, appellant did not object to the use of the Category 9 scoresheet in the trial court below nor did he raise his equal protection argument. See Trushin v. State, 425 So. 2d 1126 (Fla.1982); and A.C. v. State, 538 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).
One complaining of unjust discrimination by the State in violation of the State and Federal constitutions has the burden of showing “that the alleged discrimination has no conceivable basis, in differences of conditions, sufficient to justify the statutory regulation under attack.” Lewis v. Mathis, 345 So. 2d 1066, 1069 (Fla.1977). We conclude that appellant has failed to demonstrate or present substantial arguments to show that the inclusion of possession of contraband offenses in the Category 9 scoresheet has no conceivable basis. Accordingly, we decline to certify the issue to the Florida Supreme Court as a question of great public importance, and the motion for rehearing is,
DENIED.
THOMPSON and MINER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Trushin v. State, 425 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 1982)
- Lewis v. Judge Chas. C. Mathis, Jr., 345 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 1977)
- A.C. v. State, 538 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- State v. Davis, 537 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Vincent v. Hamilton, 550 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Spann v. State, 550 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Williams v. State, 501 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)