MARCELINE LOFTON, 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.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of a motion to correct a five-year sentence for grand theft, rejecting constitutional challenges to the Criminal Punishment Code and finding no abuse of discretion in sentencing to the statutory maximum based on the defendant's alleged deceptiveness at sentencing.
A trial court does not abuse its discretion in sentencing a defendant to the statutory maximum for grand theft based on the defendant's alleged deceptiveness during sentencing allocution, particularly where the defendant pleaded no contest rather than proceeding to trial.
[1] A trial court may consider a defendant's demeanor and credibility during sentencing allocution without violating the prohibition on considering perjury as a sentencing fa…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Marceline Lofton entered a no contest plea to grand theft and received a five-year sentence, which was the statutory maximum. She moved to c…
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 Allocution cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to correct the five year sentence entered upon appellant’s no contest plea to grand theft. In so doing, we reject appellant’s numerous constitutional challenges to the Criminal Punishment Code. See Peterson v. State, 775 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Hall v. State, 767 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), review granted, No. SC00-2358, 790 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. Apr.25, 2001).
We further reject appellant’s claim that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing her to the statutory maximum because of its belief that appellant was being deceptive during her elocution at sentencing. But cf. Eltaher v. State, 777 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)(improper for trial court to consider at sentencing defendant’s alleged perjury committed during trial); Bratcher v. State, 743 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)(“Florida law holds that a defendant’s perjury committed while under oath during trial is not a proper sentencing factor.”); Robinson v. State, 637 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)(“A trial judge’s opinion as to whether a defendant testified falsely should not enter into a decision to impose a harsher sentence unless the court is determining the sentence after a separate perjury conviction.”).
Because appellant pled to the crime charged in this case, the court’s comments cannot be construed as improperly considering appellant’s alleged perjury committed during a trial.
AFFIRMED.
DELL, WARNER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Peterson v. State, 775 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Artis J. Kelly v. State, 767 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Wester v. State, 767 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Robinson v. State, 637 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Abukareem Eltaher v. State, 777 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Bratcher v. State, 743 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)