CANOM WILLIAMS, 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.
Canon Williams challenged his convictions and sentences for drug trafficking and resisting an officer. The appellate court affirmed the convictions but vacated the sentences, finding the trial court improperly relied on the defendant's prior acquittals when imposing the statutory maximum sentences.
The court affirmed the convictions but vacated the sentences and remanded for resentencing, finding that the trial court relied on Williams's prior acquittals during sentencing, which was improper. The State failed to demonstrate that consideration of these acquittals played no part in the sentences imposed.
[1] A trial court may not rely on charges of which a defendant was acquitted when imposing a sentence.
[2] A sentence within statutory limits is generally not subject to appellate review, but an exception exists if the trial court considered prior acquittals.
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“an exception is made where the record indicates the trial court considered prior arrests not resulting in convictions when determining a defendant's sentence”
Establishes the legal standard that consideration of prior acquittals during sentencing is improper
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was convicted of trafficking cocaine, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, and resisting an officer without violence. At senten…
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 Sentencing Considerations cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant challenges his convictions and sentences for trafficking cocaine, possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute, and resisting an officer without violence. We affirm Appellant’s convictions without comment and write only to address the propriety of Appellant’s sentences. Appellant argues the trial court improperly relied on charges of which he *1267was acquitted when sentencing him. We find this argument persuasive, vacate Appellant’s sentences, and remand for resen-tencing.
Appellant’s argument focuses on the following comments made by the trial court at sentencing:
You have what has to be considered a long career in court. You have had a .historic career because, essentially, you have acquired the nickname of the Teflon Don of Bay County Jurisprudence. You’ve been to trial any number of times and the jury has found you not guilty.
Most recently, I presided over a case where you were charged with burglary of a dwelling and sexually [sic] battery. The jury in that case found you not guilty even though the DNA sample in that case made it abundantly clear that you’re about the only person on the face of the earth that could have done that. The, the sad part of it was that the jury wasn’t told the whole story there, that the, the complaining victim was, your drug dealer, your drug supplier’s girlfriend and that you and your confederate were there looking for a rip off opportunity, and when that didn’t materialize, you opted for the second best. The jury found you not guilty. I don’t believe that means that you are innocent.
Okay. Asking for, you know, the minimum for you. The, there are people, however, that come before the Court that are dangerous people, people doing dangerous things. Your history here, [ ] is speckled with violence, firearms, aggravated assault type things and batteries and all, and so in looking at all these things, I’ve come to the conclusion that you do dangerous things.
After the above colloquy, the trial court sentenced Appellant to the statutory maximum for all three charges.
Generally, a sentence within the statutory limits is not subject to appellate review. See Howard v. State, 820 So.2d 337, 339 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). However, an exception is made where the record indicates the trial court considered prior arrests not resulting in convictions when determining a defendant’s sentence. See Berry v. State, 458 So.2d 1155, 1156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (holding a trial court’s consideration of a defendant’s prior acquittals during sentencing warranted resentenc-ing). When portions of the record show the trial court relied upon prior acquittals in determining a defendant’s sentence, the State has the burden to demonstrate those considerations “played no part in the sentence imposed.” See Doty v. State, 884 So.2d 547, 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (quoting Epprecht v. State, 488 So.2d 129, 131 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)).
Based on remarks made during the sentencing hearing, the trial court appears to have relied on Appellant’s prior acquittals in sentencing him. The State has failed to assert a persuasive argument showing the court did not consider Appellant’s prior acquittals during sentencing. Accordingly, we AFFIRM Appellant’s convictions but VACATE his sentences and REMAND for resentencing.
VAN NORTWICK and BROWNING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Peters v. State, 128 So. 3d 832 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…nces, “[w]hen portions of the record show the trial court relied upon prior acquittals in determining a defendant’s sentence, the State has the burden to demonstrate those considerations ‘played no part in the sentence imposed.’ ” Williams v. State, 8 So. 3d 1266, 1267 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (quoting Doty v. State, 884 So. 2d 547, 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)) (emphasis added). The justification for this rule is that a defendant should not be punished for offenses he or she did not commit. In the instant case, howe…
-
Martinez v. State, 123 So. 3d 701 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…evidence that drugs were involved” indicated it was considering unsubstantiated allegations in its sentencing decision. The burden thus fell on the state to show that this consideration played no part in the sentence imposed. See Williams v. State, 8 So. 3d 1266, 1267 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Epprecht v. State, 488 So. 2d 129, 130 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (“[T]he State has the burden to show from the record as a whole that the trial judge did not rely upon impermissible considerations in passing sentence upon the def…
-
Dinkines v. State, 122 So. 3d 477 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…(Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (citations omitted). If it appears that the trial court has done so, the state thán has the burden to prove that the trial court did not rely on improper factors in sentencing. Id. (citation omitted); see also Williams v. State, 8 So. 3d 1266, 1267 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (“When portions of the record show the trial court relied upon prior acquittals in determining a defendant’s sentence, the State has the burden to demonstrate those considerations played no part in the sentence imposed.” (c…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Howard v. State, 820 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Doty v. State, 884 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Eladio T. Elizagarate v. State, 488 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Epprecht v. State, 488 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Berry v. State, 458 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)