Morganti v. State, No. 75940
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
| Writing for the Court | OVERTON; SHAW, C.J., and McDONALD, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., and EHRLICH; BARKETT; BARKETT |
| Citation | 573 So.2d 820,16 Fla. L. Weekly 94 |
| Decision Date | 17 January 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 75940 |
| Parties | 16 Fla. L. Weekly 94 Patrick Joseph MORGANTI, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
Page 820
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender and Marcy K. Allen, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and John M. Koenig, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondent.
OVERTON, Justice.
Patrick Joseph Morganti seeks review of Morganti v. State, 557 So.2d 593 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal approved a resentencing which was within the sentencing guidelines, but which imposed for the first time a $10,000 fine. The district court of appeal certified the following question:
WHETHER THE IMPOSITION OF A FINE FOR THE FIRST TIME ON A RESENTENCING MUST CONSTITUTE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ENHANCEMENT OF SENTENCE.
Id. at 594. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla.Const. We answer the question in the negative, finding that, depending on the circumstances, a fine on resentencing may or may not constitute an enhancement. In this case, we find that there was no unconstitutional enhancement of Morganti's sentence.
Page 821
This cause has been before us on three occasions. Morganti was first sentenced by the trial court as a habitual offender, receiving a sentence of thirty years in prison. The district court of appeal reversed and remanded, Morganti v. State, 498 So.2d 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), and we approved the district court's decision in State v. Morganti, 509 So.2d 929 (Fla.1987). On remand, the trial court sentenced Morganti to fifteen years' incarceration. The district court of appeal affirmed, Morganti v. State, 510 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), but we reversed and remanded for resentencing within the guidelines. Morganti v. State, 524 So.2d 641 (Fla.1988). The sentencing guidelines range for Morganti for this offense was five and one-half to seven years' incarceration. In sentencing Morganti for the third time, the trial judge imposed a sentence of five and one-half years' imprisonment, eighteen months' probation following incarceration, and a $10,000 fine as a condition of probation. The district court rejected Morganti's claim that the imposition of a fine for the first time upon resentencing constituted an impermissible enhancement of his sentence. The district court held:
The imposition of a fine for the first time upon a resentencing, where the defendant has rejected a previously imposed longer term of incarceration, does not constitute an abuse of discretion, nor is it an unconstitutional penalty, forbidden under North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. [2072], 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969).
557 So.2d at 594.
In this proceeding, Morganti asserts that the $10,000 fine was an unconstitutional increased penalty. He argues that, since the trial court did not impose a fine as part of the first two sentences, the trial court is now...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gartrell v. State, No. 91-0545
...only upon objective information concerning identifiable conduct by defendant occurring after original sentencing); Morganti v. State, 573 So.2d 820 (Fla.1991) (trial judge may not increase sentence upon resentencing unless increase is based on conduct occurring after imposition of original ......
-
In re Implementation of Amendment 4, the Voting Restoration Amendment, No. SC19-1341
...analysis of fines looks remarkably similar. Indeed, this Court has referred to fines as part of a "sentence." E.g. , Morganti v. State , 573 So. 2d 820, 821 (Fla. 1991) ("A lawful sentence may comprise several penalties, such as incarceration, probation, and a fine."); see id. ("[A] sentenc......
-
Wood v. State, No. 90-649
...sentence does not demonstrate that Wood was punished more severely for successfully appealing his original sentence. Morganti v. State, 573 So.2d 820 (Fla.1991). And even if more severe, there is no "apparent" vindictiveness which brings the Pearce presumption into AFFIRMED. GOSHORN, C.J., ......
-
Regueiro v. State, No. 92-2210
...that the combination allows him to be released from prison five years earlier. Both parties in the instant case cite Morganti v. State, 573 So.2d 820 (Fla.1991), wherein the defendant was resentenced twice. His original sentence was 30 years in prison as a habitual offender, his first resen......
-
Gartrell v. State, No. 91-0545
...only upon objective information concerning identifiable conduct by defendant occurring after original sentencing); Morganti v. State, 573 So.2d 820 (Fla.1991) (trial judge may not increase sentence upon resentencing unless increase is based on conduct occurring after imposition of original ......
-
In re Implementation of Amendment 4, the Voting Restoration Amendment, No. SC19-1341
...analysis of fines looks remarkably similar. Indeed, this Court has referred to fines as part of a "sentence." E.g. , Morganti v. State , 573 So. 2d 820, 821 (Fla. 1991) ("A lawful sentence may comprise several penalties, such as incarceration, probation, and a fine."); see id. ("[A] sentenc......
-
Wood v. State, No. 90-649
...sentence does not demonstrate that Wood was punished more severely for successfully appealing his original sentence. Morganti v. State, 573 So.2d 820 (Fla.1991). And even if more severe, there is no "apparent" vindictiveness which brings the Pearce presumption into AFFIRMED. GOSHORN, C.J., ......
-
Regueiro v. State, No. 92-2210
...that the combination allows him to be released from prison five years earlier. Both parties in the instant case cite Morganti v. State, 573 So.2d 820 (Fla.1991), wherein the defendant was resentenced twice. His original sentence was 30 years in prison as a habitual offender, his first resen......