State v. Battle, 94-00915
| Decision Date | 11 April 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-00915,94-00915 |
| Parties | 20 Fla. L. Weekly D935 STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Christopher C. BATTLE, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Patricia E. Davenport, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and John S. Lynch, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellee.
The state appeals the sentences imposed on Christopher C. Battle, arguing that the trial court was required to impose a three-year minimum sentence because Mr. Battle was convicted of selling cocaine within 1000 feet of a school. We reverse the sentences, but provide Mr. Battle with the opportunity to withdraw his plea on remand.
For events occurring on November 4, 1993, the state filed an information charging Mr. Battle with one count of possession of cocaine and two counts of selling or delivering cocaine within 1000 feet of a school. Mr. Battle pleaded nolo contendere in exchange for concurrent sentences of five years' imprisonment on the possession of cocaine charge and seven years' imprisonment on the two counts of selling or delivering.
At the sentencing hearing in March 1994, the state requested two concurrent three-year minimum sentences on the selling or delivering counts. The trial court believed that the legislature had eliminated such minimum sentences in January 1994 and that it was obligated to impose the newer, more lenient, sentencing.
It is well established that an amendment to a criminal statute does not affect the prosecution of, or the punishment for, a crime committed before the amendment. Castle v. State, 305 So.2d 794 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974), affirmed, 330 So.2d 10 (Fla.1976). The controlling statute for punishment is the statute in effect at the time of the commission of the crime. Gilford v. State, 487 So.2d 53 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Thus, the trial court was required to sentence based on section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1993) (). 1 Because Mr. Battle was selling cocaine, rather than purchasing it, the holding in State v. Randall, 627 So.2d 571 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), would appear to require the imposition of a minimum sentence. In a lengthy motion for rehearing, Mr. Battle has attempted to distinguish Randall based on a 1993 amendment to chapter 397, Florida Statutes. Because this argument was never made to the trial court or to this court prior to the motion for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bonner v. State, 2D12–4581.
...SeeArt. X, § 9, Fla. Const.; Perkowski v. State, 616 So.2d 26 (Fla.1993); Castle v. State, 330 So.2d 10 (Fla.1976); State v. Battle, 661 So.2d 38 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Bond v. State, 675 So.2d 184 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Perkowski v. State, 605 So.2d 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).LaROSE, KHOUZAM, and ......
-
Nelson v. State, 2D14–1819.
...So.2d 703 (Fla .1978) ; Castle v. State, 330 So.2d 10 (Fla.1976) ; Bizzell v. State, 912 So.2d 386 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) ; State v. Battle, 661 So.2d 38 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) ; Budd v. State, 477 So.2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) ; Wright v. State, 637 So.2d 356 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).DAVIS, C.J., and CRE......
-
Mack v. State, 2D11–5102.
...affect the prosecution of or punishment for a crime committed before the amendment is entrenched in the law. See State v. Battle, 661 So.2d 38, 39 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). And in addition to Whitehurst, other cases from this court have specifically held that a defendant who commits a crime prior......
-
Lloyd v. State, 2D12–5676.
...X, § 9, Fla. Const.; Castle v. State, 330 So.2d 10 (Fla.1976); Bizzell v. State, 912 So.2d 386 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); State v. Battle, 661 So.2d 38 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Wright v. State, 637 So.2d 356 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Pizarro v.. State, 330 So.2d 789 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).KHOUZAM, CRENSHAW, an......