Cromartie v. State
70 So. 3d 559
| Fla. | 2011Background
- Cromartie was convicted of cocaine trafficking and sale/possession within 1000 feet of a church.
- It initially resulted in a sentence of two concurrent eight-year terms, with a calculated presumptive minimum of approximately 7.83 years.
- A later 3.800(b) motion led to a corrected scoresheet showing a lowest possible sentence of 73.95 months (6.16 years).
- At resentencing, the trial judge stated a policy of rounding the score-derived sentence up to the next whole year, and ultimately imposed seven years; the court acknowledged the possibility of a longer sentence but chose not to apply it.
- The written judgment reflected a seven-year sentence, and Cromartie challenged the rounding policy as arbitrary in a subsequent 3.800(b) motion.
- The First District held that the rounding policy was arbitrary and a due process violation but affirmed because the issue was not raised contemporaneously; the Florida Supreme Court then granted review to address whether rounding up is a due process fundamental error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s rounding-up policy violates due process | Cromartie | Cromartie’s rounding-up policy was discretionary and not a due process violation | Yes; rounding-up policy violated due process and is fundamental error |
| Whether the error is reviewable on appeal without contemporaneous objection | Cromartie | Jackson-based requirements require contemporaneous objection for non-fundamental errors | Yes; fundamental error reviewable, permitting appellate correction |
| Appropriate remedy for the rounding-up error | Cromartie | Remand unnecessary for legal rounding; preserve under rules | Remand with instructions to sentence at bottom of guidelines consistent with reasoning |
Key Cases Cited
- Maddox v. State, 760 So.2d 89 (Fla.2000) (fundamental error analysis in sentencing; improper extension of incarceration likely fundamental)
- Jackson v. State, 983 So.2d 562 (Fla.2008) (proper use of Rule 3.800(b); preserved errors in sentencing process; fundamental error review framework)
- Hannum v. State, 13 So.3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (improper consideration of defendant's stance as a sentencing factor; due process issue; conflict authority noted)
- Hopkins v. State, 632 So.2d 1372 (Fla.1994) (due process baseline for fundamental error in sentencing decisions)
- Carratelli v. State, 961 So.2d 312 (Fla.2007) (unpreserved error and fundamental error distinctions; appellate review guidelines)