Dickie v. State
216 So. 3d 35
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2017Background
- Defendant John Graham Dickie pleaded no contest to 30 counts of possession of child pornography after investigators found thousands of images/movies on his devices pursuant to a warrant.
- At sentencing the State offered victim impact statements collected via the FBI Child Victim Identification Program; those statements came from victims (or parents) depicted in five different "series" whose images were found in Dickie’s possession.
- Dickie objected to admission of those victim impact statements, arguing among other things that they were unsworn and therefore inadmissible under section 921.143(1).
- The trial court admitted and reviewed the victim impact statements, denied Dickie’s request for a downward departure, and imposed an aggregate sentence of 397.5 months’ imprisonment.
- On appeal (Anders counsel), the Second District affirmed the convictions and sentences and limited its opinion to whether the trial court erred by considering unsworn victim impact statements at sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether section 921.143(1) bars consideration of unsworn victim impact statements at sentencing | State: trial courts may consider victim impact material relevant to sentencing; statute mandates courts permit victims to give sworn statements but does not forbid other material | Dickie: section 921.143(1) requires victim statements be under oath, so unsworn statements are inadmissible | Court: statute requires courts to permit sworn victim statements but does not bar consideration of unsworn victim impact statements; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether Patterson v. State controls and requires reversal when unsworn victim statements are considered | Patterson (1st DCA) read § 921.143(1) to require that victim statements be sworn | N/A (Dickie relied on Patterson) | Court rejected Patterson’s construction, certified conflict with Patterson |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedural framework for appellate counsel when no arguable issues)
- Bracero v. State, 10 So. 3d 664 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (sentencing court has wide discretion in factors it may consider)
- Howard v. State, 820 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (court may consider any information that reasonably bears on proper sentence)
- Patterson v. State, 994 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (held § 921.143(1) requires victim statements be sworn — conflict certified)
- Wasman v. United States, 468 U.S. 559 (1984) (permitting broad consideration of information relevant to sentencing)
- Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241 (1949) (historical support for judicial consideration of extra-record information at sentencing)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011) (Confrontation Clause considerations; absence of oath not dispositive)
- State v. Ford, 626 So. 2d 1338 (Fla. 1993) (discusses oath as a factor in confrontation analysis)