Gonzalez v. State
221 So. 3d 1225
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Gonzalez appealed an order denying his pro se rule 3.800(a) motion; this court held the trial court failed to award proper prison/jail credit and remanded to "restructure the sentence" to reflect the trial court's articulated sentencing goal while awarding proper credit. (Gonzalez v. State)
- The opinion did not expressly require Gonzalez's presence or counsel at resentencing.
- After mandate, the original sentencing judge vacated and (without Gonzalez or counsel present or notified) entered a resentencing order on June 3, 2016 imposing a 25-year sentence; no transcript exists of that proceeding.
- A successor judge later entered an "Order Clarifying and Resentencing Defendant" reducing the sentence to 23 years, 6 months but acknowledging the post-remand sentence produced a net sentence longer than the trial court had articulated; neither Gonzalez nor counsel appear to have been present for that proceeding either.
- The Department of Corrections requested clarification; the resentencings did not clearly calculate or include all prior jail/prison credit as directed by this court’s mandate.
- Gonzalez filed a motion to enforce the mandate claiming he had a right to be present and represented; the court found the State could not show harmlessness and granted the motion, vacating both post-remand orders and directing a new resentencing with Gonzalez present and represented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant has a right to be present and represented at resentencing following a rule 3.800(a) remand | Gonzalez: he has a right to be present and have counsel at resentencing | State: the post-mandate action was a ministerial task so Gonzalez need not be present | Court: Defendant does have a right to be present and represented at resentencing; absence is subject to harmless-error review |
| Whether the State proved Gonzalez's absence was harmless | Gonzalez: absence prejudiced him because resentencings produced a longer net sentence and omitted proper credit | State: failure to notify or include Gonzalez was harmless because only ministerial restructuring was required | Court: State failed to show harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt; error not harmless |
| Whether the post-remand sentences complied with the prior mandate (proper credit and reflected sentencing goal) | Gonzalez: resentencings failed to award all prior jail/prison credit and produced a net sentence longer than articulated goal | State: implied that trial court merely needed to ministerially adjust sentence per mandate | Court: The June 3 and Nov. 2 orders did not reliably comply with the mandate; they were vacated and remanded for proper resentencing with credit and presence/counsel ensured |
| Remedy required after violation of presence/right to counsel at resentencing | Gonzalez: vacatur and new resentencing with presence and counsel | State: limited or ministerial correction without new proceedings | Court: Vacated both post-remand orders and remanded for resentencing with defendant present and represented; correct all prior jail/prison credit |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzalez v. State, 194 So. 3d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (prior opinion remanding to restructure sentence and grant proper prison credit)
- Jordan v. State, 143 So. 3d 335 (Fla. 2014) (defendant has right to be present and represented at resentencing; absence reviewed for harmless error)
- Jackson v. State, 767 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 2000) (constitutional right to be present at every critical stage of proceeding)
- Garcia v. State, 492 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 1986) (State must show beyond a reasonable doubt that absence was not prejudicial)
- Holmes v. State, 100 So. 3d 281 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (prior 3d DCA discussion conflating ministerial-task exception to presence right)
- Velez v. State, 988 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (another 3d DCA case addressing resentencing presence/ministerial issues)