DAVID PUZIO
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
This case involves the resentencing of Puzio for first-degree murder convictions. The Fourth District Court of Appeal, following Florida Supreme Court reversal in Puzio II, holds that a de novo resentencing is required rather than a ministerial correction of sentences under section 775.082(1)(b)2.
A de novo resentencing as required by Williams v. State is mandated on the first-degree murder counts under section 775.082(1)(b)2., and a mere ministerial correction of sentences does not satisfy this requirement, even when the trial court has previously indicated the same sentence would be imposed.
[1] When a trial court has imposed a sentence under an unconstitutional statutory provision but the record indicates the court would impose an identical sentence under a cons…
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 intelligencePuzio was resentenced under section 775.082(1)(b)1., Florida Statutes, but no jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that he killed, intended to kill, o…
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 Armed Carjacking cases and more on FLexlaw
GERBER, J.
In Puzio v. State, 278 So. 3d 82 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (“Puzio ľ”), we concluded the trial court erred when resentencing the defendant under section 775.082(1)(b)1., Florida Statutes (2017), because “no jury has found beyond a reasonable doubt that he actually killed, intended to kill, or attempted to kill the victims.” Id. at 85-86. We further held the error was harmful because “[t]he record does not demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant killed, intended to kill, or attempted to kill the victim[s].” Id. at 86. However, rather than remanding for a de novo resentencing under section 775.082(1)(b)2., Florida Statutes (2017), pursuant to Williams v. State, 242 So. 3d 280 (Fla. 2018), we remanded for ministerial correction of the defendant's sentences under section 775.082(1)(b)2. because, during the resentencing hearing, the trial court already had stated “it equally finds a sixty-year sentence appropriate under section 775.082(1)(b)(2) in light of the facts of this case,” thus conclusively showing the trial court would have imposed the same sentence. Id.
In Puzio v. State, No. SC19-1511, 2021 WL 2583946 (Fla. June 24, 2021) (“Puzio II”), our supreme court quashed Puzio I and remanded to this court with instructions to remand to the trial court for a de novo resentencing as required by Williams. Puzio II, 2021 WL 2583946, at *1. Our supreme court reasoned that, despite the trial court's statement, a ministerial correction of the defendant's sentences under section 775.082(1)(b)2. would fall short of the de novo resentencing which Williams requires. Id.
Based on the foregoing, we reverse and remand to the trial court for a de novo resentencing as required by Williams on the first degree murder counts under section 775.082(1)(b)2., Florida Statutes (2017). We affirm on the defendant's other arguments without further discussion.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for de novo resentencing as instructed.
CONNER, C.J., and METZGER, ELIZABETH, Associate Judge, concur. * * * No further motions for rehearing shall be permitted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Prentice v. State, 319 So. 3d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)
-
Dubon v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)
Authorities Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (U.S. 2012)
- Rodrick D. Williams v. State, 242 So. 3d 280 (Fla. 2018)