KERN R. DAVIS v. STATE OF FLORIDA
2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 12922
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 1994 Kern R. Davis was convicted of robbery with a deadly weapon and armed carjacking and sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender (HVFO) to life with mandatory minimums.
- A 2013 motion argued Davis’s Dade County robbery conviction (the sole HVFO predicate) had been reversed, rendering the HVFO designation invalid.
- This court in Davis v. State, 164 So.3d 96 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) reversed and remanded for resentencing, noting Davis might still qualify as a habitual felony offender.
- On remand the State sought habitual felony offender status; parties stipulated Davis qualified and the successor trial judge heard resentencing evidence, including letters and certificates showing rehabilitation in prison.
- During resentencing the successor judge stated he would not “revisit” the original sentence or fully consider Davis’s post‑conviction rehabilitation; the judge reimposed life with mandatory minimums.
- Davis appealed, claiming the resentencing denied him the full panoply of due process because the court failed to proceed de novo and ignored relevant new evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether resentencing after vacatur must be de novo with full due process | Davis: remand required a “clean slate”; court must consider new evidence (rehab, age, mitigation) | State: court conducted de novo resentencing and permissibly exercised discretion to reimpose same sentence | Court held resentencing must be de novo with full panoply and reversed because judge declined to reassess sentence or consider new evidence |
| Whether successor judge may simply confirm prior sentence absent new findings | Davis: successor must independently evaluate and not merely rubber‑stamp prior sentence | State: successor may recreate original sentencing intent and impose same sentence | Court found successor judge did not demonstrate independent judgment or engage in de novo sentencing; reversal required |
| Scope of evidence required at resentencing | Davis: State and court must consider both prior and newly presented evidence and allow defense full opportunity | State: argued it complied and had no obligation to change sentence | Court emphasized full opportunity to present and have considered new evidence; trial court refused to consider some evidence, violating due process |
| Whether court may limit resentencing to eligibility determination for habitual offender status | Davis: remand required full resentencing, not just eligibility ruling | State: remand could be read as allowing eligibility determination and preserving original sentence | Court rejected limiting remand to eligibility; vacated sentence and ordered new de novo resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. State, 164 So.3d 96 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (prior opinion vacating HVFO designation and remanding for resentencing)
- State v. Fleming, 61 So.3d 399 (Fla. 2011) (resentencing after vacatur requires full panoply of due process)
- State v. Scott, 439 So.2d 219 (Fla. 1983) (defendant entitled to full procedural protections on resentencing)
- Galindez v. State, 955 So.2d 517 (Fla. 2007) (resentencing is a “clean slate”; court must consider all issues and may make new findings)
- Peters v. State, 128 So.3d 832 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (successor judge must show independent judgment at resentencing)
- Dixon v. State, 41 So.3d 990 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (discusses limits on increasing sentence after resentencing)
- Suarez v. State, 974 So.2d 451 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (addresses resentencing scope after vacatur)