Gordon v. State
139 So. 3d 958
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- Gordon was charged with trafficking in oxycodone (28 grams to 30 kilograms) by possession and conspiracy to traffic in oxycodone for the same amount under Florida law.
- She was found guilty of trafficking 14–28 grams and guilty of conspiracy; sentenced to 30 years on each count, with concurrent terms and mandatory add-ons of 15 years (trafficking) and 25 years (conspiracy).
- Fines of $100,000 for trafficking and $500,000 for conspiracy were imposed, plus costs; conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal.
- Gordon challenge the fines as unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment excessiveness standard.
- The court addressed preservation, noting an exception for facial challenges to the constitutionality of a sentencing statute not previously invalidated by appellate decisions.
- The court ultimately held the fines not constitutionally excessive and affirmed the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive fines review standard? | Gordon argues fines are grossly disproportional to offense. | State contends fines are within legislative direction and not grossly disproportional. | Fines not grossly disproportional; constitutional. |
| Preservation and facial challenge exception? | Gordon preserves issue via facial challenge to statute; exception applies. | No preservation; procedural default normally bars review. | Facial challenge exception applies; review permitted. |
| Harm and penalties as basis for proportionality? | Aggregate penalties and actual harm could render fines excessive. | Legislature directed penalties and modeled on offense class; harms justify penalties. | Harm and offense class support constitutionality of fines. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (U.S. (1998)) (excessive fines clause explored)
- Levesque, 546 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2008) (three-factor test for disproportionality)
- Heldeman, 402 F.3d 220 (1st Cir. 2005) (circumstances to assess harm and forfeiture)
- Mackby, 339 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2003) (penalties as guide to culpability in constitutional review)
- Jackson v. State, 983 So.2d 562 (Fla. 2008) (preservation rules for sentencing error)
- Brannon v. State, 850 So.2d 452 (Fla. 2003) (Rule 3.800(b) preservation exception)
- Harvey v. State, 848 So.2d 1060 (Fla. 2003) (facial challenge context for constitutionality)
- Hayes, 720 So.2d 1095 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (drug sentencing context and penalties)
- Adkins, 96 So.3d 412 (Fla. 2012) (constitutional presumption of validity of statutes)