Goldwire v. State
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 17375
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Goldwire pleaded guilty to four counts: two armed-robbery-with-a-firearm counts and two lesser-counts; adjudicated guilty on the robbery counts and sentenced to two years in DOC as a youthful offender with concurrent credit for time served, and four years probation for the other two counts, consecutive to incarceration.
- Goldwire violated probation condition by possessing weapon as a felon; VOP proceedings and suppression motion were held together.
- Trial court believed it had no sentencing discretion and that the Criminal Punishment Code guidelines applied; it revoked probation and imposed a twenty-year sentence plus five years on the grand theft count.
- Goldwire moved to correct sentencing error under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2); the trial court did not timely issue a response, so the motion was denied by operation of law.
- On appeal, the Fourth District held the trial court may exercise discretion and remanded for re-sentencing to allow consideration of all sentencing options, eliminating the belief it was required to impose a particular sentence.
- The court noted the invited-error doctrine did not apply since Goldwire benefited from a harsher sentence than discretion allowed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by applying mandatory sentencing due to believed lack of discretion. | Goldwire | Goldwire | Remanded for re-sentencing to exercise discretion |
| Whether the invited-error doctrine affected the outcome. | Goldwire | State | Not applicable; remand allowed court to re-evaluate discretion |
| Whether the trial court could impose a non-youthful-offender sentence for a substantive VOP. | Goldwire | State | Court may exercise discretion; not bound to minimum youth-offender sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Kittles v. State, 31 So. 3d 283 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (motion to correct sentencing error; de novo review)
- Munnerlyn v. State, 795 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (remand when court appears to mistake lack of discretion)
- Cordoba v. Rodriguez, 939 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (invited error doctrine; standard avoided when not invited)
- Soanes v. State, 31 So. 3d 914 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (remand for re-sentencing to allow court to examine discretion)
- Bryant v. State, 876 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (substantive violation allows maximum sentence for offenses)
- Willis v. State, 744 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (trial court may exceed youthful-offender maximum for substantive violations)
- Johnson v. State, 678 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (youthful offender may be sentenced as non-youthful for violations)
- Dunbar v. State, 664 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (discretion in sentencing for probation violations)