Joe Wayne Bell v. State of Florida
219 So. 3d 221
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Joe Wayne Bell, pro se, appealed the denial of a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 postconviction motion challenging aspects of his sentencing.
- Bell was convicted of kidnapping and multiple counts of sexual battery with the use of physical force likely to cause serious personal injury (life felonies), based on offenses committed February 9, 1996.
- The trial court had imposed Habitual Violent Felony Offender (HVFO) designations and fifteen-year mandatory minimums as to the sexual battery counts.
- Bell argued HVFO designation was improper because the statutory amendment permitting habitualization of life felonies was unconstitutional during the period his offenses were committed.
- The State conceded HVFO should be stricken for the sexual battery counts after the court’s Toler order, but argued resentencing was unnecessary because the change would be ministerial.
- The District Court affirmed denial of other grounds and the kidnapping-related sentence, but reversed as to the HVFO designation for the sexual battery counts and remanded for resentencing under the 1994 guidelines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HVFO designation valid for sexual battery convictions committed Feb 9, 1996 | Bell: HVFO improper because amendment applying HVFO to life felonies was unconstitutional during that period | State: HVFO valid; if struck, resentencing is ministerial and no hearing required | HVFO designation invalid for those sexual battery counts; remand for resentencing required |
| Whether striking HVFO designation is ministerial (no resentencing hearing required) | Bell: Resentencing required; presence and counsel necessary because court has discretion | State: Striking is ministerial and does not require defendant’s presence or a hearing | Not ministerial here; resentencing hearing required with defendant present and represented |
| Which sentencing guidelines apply on resentencing | Bell: 1994 guidelines apply because 1995 guidelines were unconstitutional during period of offense | State: (implicitly) apply current or later guidelines / no resentencing needed | Resentencing under 1994 sentencing guidelines is required |
| Whether HVFO designation valid as to kidnapping count | Bell: (asserted errors included) | State: trial court’s ruling should stand | Affirmed as to kidnapping sentence; no change to that conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Sims v. State, 997 So. 2d 1166 (recognizing the amendment applying HVFO to life felonies was later held unconstitutional)
- State v. Thompson, 750 So. 2d 643 (discussing constitutionality window for the habitual offender amendment)
- Jordan v. State, 143 So. 3d 335 (correction to sentence is not ministerial when trial court has discretion at resentencing)
- Thompson v. State, 987 So. 2d 727 (deleting HFO designation can affect permissible sentence; presence may be required)
- Jones v. State, 61 So. 3d 1204 (defendant entitled to be present and represented at resentencing)
- Hawkins v. State, 195 So. 3d 1196 (defendants sentenced during period of unconstitutional guidelines must be resentenced under prior guidelines)
- Heggs v. State, 759 So. 2d 620 (basis for reverting to prior sentencing guidelines when newer guidelines found unconstitutional)
- Trapp v. State, 760 So. 2d 924 (same principle applying Heggs)
- Wheeler v. State, 129 So. 3d 469 (trial court may impose upward departures with written reasons)