LEONARDA SIMETON, 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.
Leonarda Simeton appeals the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that the trial court erroneously applied the 1996 sentencing guidelines to his offense committed on December 15, 1996. The court reverses, finding that Simeton's offense falls within the constitutional window period for challenging sentences under the 1995 amendments to Florida's sentencing guidelines.
A defendant has standing to challenge his sentence under Heggs if his offense was committed on or after October 1, 1995 and before May 24, 1997. Because Simeton's offense was committed within this window period, he may challenge his sentence, and the trial court must determine on remand whether resentencing under the 1994 guidelines is required.
[1] A defendant may challenge a sentence imposed under unconstitutional sentencing guidelines if the offense was committed within the period during which the guidelines were…
[2] Sentences imposed under the 1996 sentencing guidelines are subject to challenge if the offense occurred between October 1, 1995, and May 24, 1997.
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“those persons with standing to challenge their sentences under Heggs were those whose offenses were committed on or after October 1, 1995, and before May 24, 1997”
Establishes the constitutional window period for challenging sentences under the unconstitutional 1995 amendments
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLeonarda Simeton was sentenced to sixty months in prison for an offense committed on December 15, 1996. The trial court used the 1996 sentencing guide…
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 Motion To Correct Illegal Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Leonarda Simeton appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), in which he challenged his sixty-month prison sentence, claiming that the trial court erred in using the 1996 sentencing guidelines in sentencing him-for an offense committed on December 15, 1996, pursuant to Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla.2000). Appellant alleges that a corrected scoresheet prepared under the 1994 guidelines would produce a sentencing range of 24.9 to 41.5 months.
The trial court’s denial was based on this court’s opinion in Bortel v. State, 743 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), abrogated by Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924 (Fla.2000), which found that defendants had standing to raise this challenge if their offense was committed on or after October 1, 1995, and before October 1, 1996. However, the supreme court has since decided otherwise. See Trapp, 760 So. 2d at 927 (holding that those persons with standing to challenge their sentences under Heggs were those whose offenses were committed on or after October 1, 1995, and before May 24,1997).
Because appellant’s offense was committed within the window period during which the 1995 amendments to the sentencing guidelines were unconstitutional, we reverse the order denying appellant’s motion to correct illegal sentence. On remand, the trial court shall determine whether resentencing is required. If the trial court determines that appellant’s sentence could not have been imposed under the 1994 version of the sentencing guidelines without a departure, it shall resentence him in accordance with the valid guidelines in existence at the time his offense was committed. If it determines there is no need to resentence him, the trial court shall attach to its order of denial all documents supporting such determination. See Heggs, 759 So. 2d at 627-28; Speed v. State, 764 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); George v. State, 760 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Smith v. State, 761 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
STEVENSON, GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2000)
- Xzavier Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2000)
- Smith v. State, 761 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Bortel v. State, 743 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Speed v. State, 764 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Johnson v. State, 760 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)