Dinkines v. State
122 So. 3d 477
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Kimberly Dinkines was tried by jury on charges including dealing in stolen property and false verification of ownership given to a pawnbroker; convicted only of false verification and acquitted of dealing in stolen property.
- The pawnshop form bore Dinkines’s signature and thumbprint; victim reclaimed his lawn mower after paying pawnshop.
- At sentencing the prosecutor urged the court to consider related conduct and a co-defendant’s pending file; the court relied on those representations and the court’s own view of Dinkines as a facilitator.
- The trial court adjudicated guilt and sentenced Dinkines to three years’ state prison despite a Criminal Punishment Code score of 4 and the offense being a non‑forcible third‑degree felony.
- The court issued written findings that she was an important actor, refused to cooperate, lacked remorse, and posed a danger to the community.
- Dinkines appealed, arguing the statute mandated a nonstate‑prison sanction absent competent findings of danger and that the court impermissibly relied on acquitted/uncharged conduct and her alleged lack of remorse.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §775.082(10) required a nonstate‑prison sanction | Dinkines: her CPC score (4) and non‑forcible felony require a nonstate sanction absent written findings of danger | State: court could sentence to prison after making findings of dangerousness and considering related conduct | Court: statute mandated nonstate sanction absent proper written findings of danger; record did not support danger finding; reverse and remand for nonstate sentence |
| Whether sentencing court improperly considered lack of remorse | Dinkines: court relied on perceived lack of remorse to justify prison, but remorse is irrelevant to §775.082(10)’s mandatory mitigation | State: remorse and other factors justified sentence | Court: considering lack of remorse to avoid statutory mitigation violated due process; requires resentencing |
| Whether court relied on acquitted or uncharged conduct and a co‑defendant’s file | Dinkines: court relied on acquitted charge and uncharged conduct from co‑defendant’s file, violating due process | State: asserted court’s statements were not decisive or were harmless (conclusory) | Court: record shows reliance on impermissible factors; state failed to prove those factors played no role; warrants resentencing |
| Whether resentencing must be before a different judge | Dinkines: requested different judge on remand | State: no specific argument preserved in opinion | Court: ordered resentencing before a different judge |
Key Cases Cited
- Green v. State, 84 So.3d 1169 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (remorse is a valid mitigation factor generally)
- Doty v. State, 884 So.2d 547 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (sentencing cannot rely on conduct of which defendant was acquitted)
- Williams v. State, 8 So.3d 1266 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (state bears burden to show acquittals did not influence sentence)
- Sprott v. State, 99 So.3d 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (remand for resentencing with instruction to impose nonstate sanction where record does not support dangerousness finding)
- Jones v. State, 71 So.3d 173 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (remanding for nonstate sanction where record fails to support future dangerousness)
- Jackson v. State, 39 So.3d 427 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (ordering resentencing before a different judge)
- Porter v. State, 110 So.3d 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (characterizing §775.082(10) as mandated mitigation)