Mosley v. State
| Citation | 198 So.3d 58 |
| Decision Date | 06 November 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D14–2910.,2D14–2910. |
| Parties | Jeffrey V. MOSLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Maureen E. Surber, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Bilal A. Faruqui, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
LUCAS
, Judge.
Jeffrey Mosley appeals his judgment and sentences for one count of possession of cannabis with intent to sell/manufacture/deliver within 1000 feet of a public housing project, four counts of felony drug possession, one count of misdemeanor cannabis possession, and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia. After the jury found him guilty, the circuit court convened a sentencing hearing and sentenced Mr. Mosley to seven years in state prison. We affirm his convictions in all respects but agree with Mr. Mosley that the circuit court considered impermissible facts in deciding his sentence. Accordingly, we reverse Mr. Mosley's sentences and remand for the circuit court to resentence him in accordance with this opinion.
At the sentencing hearing, Mr. Mosley requested a probationary sentence, while the State asked the court to impose no less than a ten-year prison sentence. Mr. Mosley's Criminal Punishment Code scoresheet computation indicated a lowest permissible sentence of “any nonstate prison sanction.”
In support of its request, the State called a single witness, a detective who was apparently quite familiar with Mr. Mosley. The detective discussed numerous events and allegations concerning Mr. Mosley, most of which went beyond the crimes before the sentencing court or those that were reflected in Mr. Mosley's scoresheet. For example, the detective discussed the subsequent execution of search warrants at Mr. Mosley's house; the recovery of narcotics and weapons at Mr. Mosley's residence, presumably in connection with those warrants; undercover drug sales with other individuals living in Mr. Mosley's home; the subsequent arrest of Mr. Mosley relating to another sale of narcotics while Mr. Mosley was on house arrest for the charges in the current criminal case; a recent “stabbing in front of [Mr. Mosley's] house” in which “the victim had narcotics in his pockets”; that Mr. Mosley was “the primary aggressor in a fight in the jail” and may have broken another inmate's jaw; and Mr. Mosley's alleged connection to a home invasion robbery in which one of the victims had died. The detective summarized his impression of Mr. Mosley, calling him a “nuisance,” and asked the circuit court to impose a ten-year prison sentence “on behalf of law enforcement.”
Mr. Mosley's attorney repeatedly raised objections during the detective's testimony, only some of which were sustained. During argument, counsel for Mr. Mosley asked the court to focus only on the crimes before the court for sentencing and to disregard the allegations of uncharged crimes, pending charges for alleged crimes, or any other unsubstantiated misconduct. In imposing its sentence, the trial court remarked that it was “primarily looking at the case that we're here on,” while stating that it may have entertained “some consideration of other factors.”
We review whether the circuit court considered inappropriate sentencing factors under a de novo standard of review. Cromartie v. State, 70 So.3d 559, 563 (Fla.2011)
; Imbert v. State, 154 So.3d 1174, 1175 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). The State bears the burden to show from the record as a whole that the trial court did not consider impermissible factors in rendering its sentence. Nusspickel v. State, 966 So.2d 441, 444–45 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). We...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Turner v. State
...court may not consider for sentencing the details of pending charges that occurred after the primary offense. See Mosely v. State, 198 So.3d 58, 59–60 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (holding that incidents of misconduct occurring after the charged offense, some of which did not result in charges or arr......
-
Strong v. State
...to show that the trial court did not rely on impermissible factors in sentencing. See Norvil , 191 So.3d at 409. In Mosley v. State , 198 So.3d 58, 60 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (alteration added), the court further explained what the State must show:The State bears the burden to show from the reco......
-
Toye v. State
...at least in part, on her failure to enter a plea, we believe she should be resentenced before a different judge. See Mosley v. State 198 So. 3d 58, 60 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (reversing and remanding for resentencing before a different judge where the record could reasonably be read to suggest t......
-
Wyrich v. State
... ... reasonably be read to suggest' that a defendant's ... sentence was the result, at least in part, of the ... consideration of impermissible factors," reversal is ... required. Love v. State, 235 So.3d 1037, 1040 (Fla ... 2d DCA 2018) (quoting Mosley v. State, 198 So.3d 58, ... 60 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)); see also Norvil, 191 So.3d ... at 410 (holding that consideration of a subsequent arrest ... without conviction at sentencing results in fundamental ... error) ... III ... On ... ...
-
Judgment and sentence
...review, reversed because allegations intruded on sentence hearing. Remanded for resentencing before a different judge. Mosley v. State, 198 So. 3d 58 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) Trial court could not impose sentence on defendant without letting defendant read his entire prepared statement at sentenc......