Lawton v. State
| Decision Date | 30 November 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 3D15–1520.,3D15–1520. |
| Citation | 207 So.3d 359 |
| Parties | Franklin LAWTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Marti Rothenberg and Jonathan Greenberg, Assistant Public Defenders, for appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Sandra Lipman, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before SUAREZ, C.J., and LAGOA and SCALES, JJ.
Franklin Lawton ("Lawton") appeals from his sentence. On appeal, Lawton argues that the trial court impermissibly considered his lack of remorse when imposing sentence.1 For the reasons discussed below, we vacate Lawton's sentence and remand for resentencing before a different judge.
Pursuant to section 921.0026(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2015), Lawton filed a motion for a downward departure based on the grounds that he required specialized treatment for his physical disabilities and was amenable to treatment. Neither in his motion nor at the hearing did Lawton raise rehabilitation or remorse as reasons for mitigation. At the hearing on the downward departure motion, the State argued that Lawton did not require specialized treatment that could not be handled in prison. The State further argued that:
THE STATE: [I]n light of the fact that Mr. Lawton has, still to this day, not expressed any remorse for what he's done or any responsibility for something that he has now been adjudicated guilty by 6 of his peers and in light of the victim's wishes, the State is requesting that your Honor sentence him to a minimum of five years in state prison....
After hearing arguments, the trial court issued its ruling and stated:
The trial court sentenced Lawton to 8 years in prison.
It is well established that "[w]hile a sentencing court has wide discretion as to the factors it may consider in imposing a sentence, it is constitutionally impermissible for it to consider the fact that a defendant continues to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. State
...failure to show remorse as a factor in sentencing" requiring a "remand for resentencing before a different judge"); Lawton v. State , 207 So.3d 359, 361 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) ("The trial court's consideration of remorse ... constituted an impermissible factor in imposing its sentence" such tha......
-
Wilson v. State
...it has recognized an exception to the general rule when the trial court considers a defendant's lack of remorse. See Lawton v. State , 207 So. 3d 359, 361 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).But despite the holdings in the other district courts, this Court has maintained that appellate review is generally n......
-
Strong v. State
...and made no apology. We find that the present case is more analogous to the Third District Court of Appeal's case of Lawton v. State , 207 So.3d 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). There, like here, the defendant asserted one ground for a downward departure sentence, unrelated to section 921.0026(2)(j)......
-
Piccinini v. State
...Strong v. State, 263 So. 3d 199 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) ; Robinson v. State, 108 So. 3d 1150 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) ; see also Lawton v. State, 207 So. 3d 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).Accordingly, we affirm Piccinini's conviction, vacate his sentence, and remand for resentencing before a different judge......
-
Judgment and sentence
...court held the trial court’s consideration of remorse constituted an impermissible factor in imposing its sentence. Lawton v. State, 207 So. 3d 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) A departure sentence is prohibited unless there are mitigating factors as provided in §921.0026 which reasonably justify a d......