DIEUVIL
v.
ROYALE FLA. ENTERS., INC.
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 trial court properly denied a motion for new trial based on allegedly newly discovered evidence, but the consecutive sentences of 25 years each for robbery and burglary must be reversed because the trial court relied on the defendant's habitual offender status as a primary departure factor, which is not a valid basis for departing from the sentencing guidelines.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence if the evidence would not have probably changed the ver…
[2] A sentence outside the recommended guidelines range is invalid if based in whole or in part on an invalid reason for departure.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“”
Standard for reviewing denial of motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of robbery and burglary of a dwelling and sentenced to consecutive 25-year terms, substantially ab…
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 Clear And Convincing Reasons For Departure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal from a judgment and sentences after a jury trial in which the trial judge denied appellant’s amended motion for a new trial and sentenced appellant to consecutive terms of 25 years each for robbery and burglary of a dwelling. The recommended guidelines sentence was five and one-half to seven years. We affirm the convictions but reverse the sentences and remand for resen-tencing.
The trial judge denied appellant a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. The record shows that the trial judge did not believe the alleged new evidence would “probably” have changed the verdict as required by Rule 3.600(a)(3), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s ruling. Jent v. State, 408 So. 2d 1024, 1031 (Fla.1981), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1111, 102 S.Ct. 2916, 73 L.Ed.2d 1322 (1982). Therefore, the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court gave three written reasons for departure from the guidelines sentence, only one of which is not clear and convincing. The State concedes that appellant’s habitual offender status is not a valid reason for departure. Whitehead v. State, 498 So. 2d 863 (Fla.1986). Furthermore, the State agrees that the trial judge placed great weight on the finding of habitual offender in imposing the sentence outside the guidelines and did not state that he would depart from the guidelines for any one of the reasons given. Therefore, the sentences are reversed, and the case is remanded for resentencing. Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla.1985). The trial judge may, after reweighing the two valid departure factors, sentence appellant within the recommended range or, if he so chooses, again impose a sentence outside the guidelines.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing.
BOOTH, THOMPSON and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)
- Whitehead v. State, 498 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1986)
- Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985)
- Jent v. State, 408 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 1981)
- Harris v. California, 457 U.S. 1111 (U.S. 1982)