154 So. 3d 469
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- Goldstein charged with 100 counts of possession of child pornography; the State offered a ten-year cap open plea, rejected by court.
- Goldstein pled guilty open, and was sentenced to 15 years on count one and five years on others, consecutive to each other but downward from guidelines.
- Court relied on a generalized policy and fear of future offenses rather to individual case facts and evidence.
- Barnhill v. State, 140 So.3d 1055 (Fla.2d DCA 2014) addressed similar improper use of general policy in sentencing.
- Evidence showed extensive, consistent defense and character testimony; State presented extensive pornographic material found on Goldstein’s devices.
- Opinion holds that the trial judge’s generalized fears and policy were improper, constituting fundamental error requiring resentencing before a different judge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court’s generalized policy on child-pornography cases constitute fundamental error? | Goldstein: court applied general policy, not case-specific evidence. | State: standard sentencing discretion allowed; policy-driven rhetoric permissible. | Yes; fundamental error; remanded for resentencing before another judge. |
| May a defendant be resentenced by a different judge given improper reasoning? | Goldstein entitled to resentencing before different judge. | State: no automatic need for different judge. | Remanded for resentencing before a different judge. |
| Does careful sentencing explanation mitigate concerns about public confidence? | Explanation can legitimate decisions. | Explanation insufficient where policy-driven fear taints judgment. | Explanation insufficient to cure fundamental error; reversal warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnhill v. State, 140 So.3d 1055 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (fundamental error when judge applies general policy to sentencing)
- Craun v. State, 124 So.3d 1027 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (cannot rely on unsubstantiated allegations when imposing sentence)
- Nusspickel v. State, 966 So.2d 441 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (due process concerns with speculative future misconduct in sentencing)
- Martinez v. State, 123 So.3d 701 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (sentence based on mere allegation violates defendant’s rights)
- Bracero v. State, 10 So.3d 664 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (discretion to sentence, but must be based on relevant evidence)
- Stano v. State, 473 So.2d 1282 (Fla. 1985) (judicial discretion includes what is relevant evidence at sentencing)
- In re Inquiry Concerning a Judge, J.Q.C. No. 77-16, 357 So.2d 172 (Fla. 1978) (judges’ experience can inform but not override case-specific facts)
- Nateman v. Greenbaum, 582 So.2d 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (judges are influenced by real-life experience but must be fair and impartial)