Mills v. State, 97-3617.
| Decision Date | 30 December 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-3617.,97-3617. |
| Parties | Thomas MILLS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Eric Gottlieb, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Don M. Rogers, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
We reverse Appellant's sentence and remand for re-sentencing.
Appellant was before the trial court for re-sentencing following a successful appeal of his initial 25-year sentence in Mills v. State, 690 So.2d 735 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). We found reversible error in the original sentence for impermissibly scored points for being under legal constraint and for prior juvenile felony commitments that failed to show that Mills was either represented by, or validly waived his right to, counsel. Id.
Mills was present at the re-sentencing and was represented by counsel. At the re-sentencing hearing, a new guidelines scoresheet was presented which deleted the juvenile charges and the points for legal constraint at the time of the offense. The new guidelines scoresheet included the other convictions which were included in the original scoresheet and also included two misdemeanor battery convictions which did not appear on the guideline scoresheet used in the initial sentencing. Although Mills objected to the inclusion of certain of the prior convictions, referring to them by date, the trial court did not require the state to re-prove the validity of any of the remaining prior offenses or the validity of the two battery convictions.
At the re-sentencing hearing, the state proffered testimony of the victim regarding victim injury, and victim injury was scored as severe, 21 points, as it had been scored in the first guideline scoresheet. Mills called several witnesses to testify on his behalf. The new guidelines scoresheet showed a total point score of 259 points, placing Mills within the recommended sentencing range of seventeen to twenty-two years. The trial court sentenced Mills to a term of twenty years imprisonment. In Griffin v. State, 517 So.2d 669 (Fla.1987), the supreme court recognized that the trial court, on remand for re-sentencing, was required to hold a full sentencing hearing to which all due process guarantees attach, in the defendant's presence, and with the opportunity to present evidence relevant to his sentence unless otherwise directed by the remand order. We can discern no basis for excepting the duty of the state to present proof as to the validity of the contested convictions that form the basis for the re-sentence.
With regard to the state's argument that the law of the case precludes raising issues that could have been raised in the original appeal, we have considered Warren v. State, 709 So.2d 138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Collins
...qualifies for enhanced sentencing, even though such evidence was introduced in the previous sentencing hearing); Mills v. State, 724 So.2d 173, 174 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (holding that even though the defendant did not challenge his prior convictions at the original sentencing, law-of-the-case......
-
Forman v. State
...to introduce evidence at the resentencing hearing to prove that the defendant qualifies for an enhanced sentence); Mills v. State, 724 So. 2d 173, 174 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) ("The [S]tate is not insulated by law of the case principles from proving challenged prior convictions forming the basis......
-
Dean v. State
...qualifies for enhanced sentencing, even though such evidence was introduced in the previous sentencing hearing); Mills v. State , 724 So. 2d 173, 174 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (holding that even though the defendant did not challenge his prior convictions at the original sentencing, law-of-the-ca......
-
Street v. State, 4D04-4442.
...the original appeal in Street, 609 So.2d at 779, making it the law of the case. This finding was erroneous in light of Mills v. State, 724 So.2d 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), in which this court determined that upon resentencing after appellate reversal of an illegal sentence, a defendant is ent......