Peacock v. State
167 So. 3d 514
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Dana Peacock was convicted of multiple sexual offenses and sentenced in 2000 to concurrent prison terms and concurrent probation on other counts; this court affirmed on direct appeal (Peacock v. State).
- A 2002 scoresheet error led to a granted Rule 3.800(a) resentencing hearing in 2003. The successor judge reimposed identical incarceration terms.
- At resentencing the court added four new special conditions of probation (drug/alcohol screening and testing, HIV testing with results to victim, and electronic monitoring at defendant's expense).
- Peacock later filed a Rule 3.800(a) motion (2014) arguing those added probation conditions unconstitutionally enhanced his sentence in violation of double jeopardy; the trial court denied relief.
- The Fifth District granted clarification on appeal, held the added probation conditions illegally enhanced the sentence, and reversed and remanded to strike the four new conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether new probation conditions imposed at a resentencing after a scoresheet error violated double jeopardy | Peacock: Imposing new/stricter probation conditions at resentencing enhanced sentence in violation of double jeopardy and rule 3.800(a) | State: Resentencing was de novo, so court could add or modify probation conditions | Court: Adding new special probation conditions at this resentencing was an unlawful enhancement and violated double jeopardy; reversed and remanded to strike them |
| Whether a resentencing limited to specific counts permits modification of unrelated counts | Peacock: Motion targeted scoresheet error affecting incarceration counts only; probation counts not at issue | State: Resentencing authority allowed changes across counts | Court: Motion directed to specified counts did not authorize modification of legal sentences on other counts; such changes were impermissible |
| Whether a resentencing triggered by an error favorable to the State may be used to increase sentence | Peacock: Resentencing to correct State-favored error cannot be used to increase punishment | State: (implicit) de novo rule permits adjustments | Court: Resentencing aimed at a State-favored error cannot be used to increase sentence; doing so is fundamental error |
| Remedy | Peacock: Strike the unlawfully-added conditions | State: Uphold conditions as part of resentencing | Court: Reversed and remanded to strike the four new special conditions; similar-but-not-identical conditions to be construed to avoid enhancement |
Key Cases Cited
- Hopping v. State, 708 So.2d 263 (Fla. 1998) (rule 3.800(a) claim cognizable where sentence unconstitutionally enhanced)
- Lippman v. State, 633 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 1994) (court may not enhance probation terms absent proof of violation)
- Clark v. State, 579 So.2d 109 (Fla. 1991) (same: limits on modifying probation without violation)
- Cazares v. State, 127 So.3d 828 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (motion to correct sentence directed at specific counts does not permit altering other counts)
- Simpkins v. State, 841 So.2d 643 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (resentencing after remand cannot be used to impose new probation conditions that increase punishment)
- Peacock v. State, 812 So.2d 430 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (direct-appeal opinion affirming original judgment and sentence)