Miles v. State

• Decision Date: 10 June 2022
• Docket Number: 2D21-1519
• Citation: 343 So.3d 131
• Parties: Willie MILES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

343 So.3d 131

Willie MILES, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2D21-1519

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 10, 2022

Dane K. Chase of Chase Law Florida, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Chris Phillips, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa; and William C. Shelhart, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa (substituted as counsel of record), for Appellee.

LaROSE, Judge.

Willie Miles appeals the more severe sentence imposed following his successful postconviction challenge to his original sentence. He claims that the postconviction court impermissibly increased his sentence, not only because he had already begun serving the original sentence, but because the original sentence had been final for over a dozen years.

He contends that his new sentence offends the "reasonable expectation of finality" he had in his original sentence and, therefore, violates double jeopardy. See amend. V, U.S. Const. ("No person shall be ... subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb ...."); art. I, § 9, Fla. Const. ("No person shall ... be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense ...."). We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). We affirm Mr. Miles’ new sentence.

Background

Mr. Miles discharged a firearm into a restaurant's crowded parking lot. A bullet

343 So.3d 133

struck the victim in the leg. In 2005, a jury found Mr. Miles guilty as charged of aggravated battery with a firearm causing great bodily harm.

At the 2005 sentencing hearing, Mr. Miles requested a youthful offender sentence.¹ The State advised the trial court that, in charging Mr. Miles, it had "invoked the 10-20-Life statute." See § 775.087(2)(a)1.g, 3, Fla. Stat. (2004). Therefore, the State asked the trial court to "follow the firearm statute ... and impose a 25-year [mandatory minimum sentence]."

After hearing from Mr. Miles’ mother and the victim, the trial court pronounced sentence: "[P]ursuant to Florida Statute in this regard I -- the Court has no alternative other then [sic] to sentence you to 25 years in the State prison." The trial court's orally pronounced sentence did not include a mandatory minimum term, but the written sentence did. We affirmed the judgment and sentence on direct appeal. See Miles v. State , 962 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (table decision). Our mandate issued August 29, 2007.

In October 2019, Mr. Miles filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(a). He argued that his written sentence is illegal because it does not comport with the trial court's oral pronouncement. The State conceded error. Following an April 2021 resentencing hearing, the postconviction court orally pronounced the twenty-five-year mandatory minimum term and entered a conforming written sentence.

On appeal, Mr. Miles claims that he possessed "a reasonable expectation of finality in the [2005] sentence ... and, as such, the circuit court was without the lawful authority to increase his sentence by adding a 25[-]year mandatory minimum sentence nearly 16 years later." He claims that his new sentence violates double jeopardy.

Analysis

I. Mr. Miles’ Original Sentences-Oral versus Written

In Florida, "a court's oral pronouncement of a sentence controls over the written sentencing document." Williams v. State , 957 So. 2d 600, 603 (Fla. 2007) ; accord Ashley v. State , 850 So. 2d 1265, 1268 (Fla. 2003) (recognizing the "longstanding principle of law-that a court's oral pronouncement of sentence controls over the written document"); Bryant v. State , 301 So....